Meiosis: The Science of Messiah.

[Bear Wild]

. . . Feel free to generalize for us all what you think the thinkers in the article claim is the purpose and design of meiosis. I've read more than you care to know about it and am more than willing to generalize concepts and principles that support my hypothesis.



John

I am sure you have read more that I want to know but from non-scientific sources from what you presented. Did you even read the other article which gave more information as to design and advantages of meiosis, and if so refute what is presented if you even understand it. The article as I have already mentioned breaks down the aspects that need to be evaluated with the evidence accumulating as each aspect is evaluated.
So give the evidence for your hypothesis - and not just opinion.

 

[Bear Wild]

The lobster is not immortal. . . And neither am I. I have everlasting life. Which trumps immortality by infinity.

I'm sorry if this offends your sensibilities. <s>



John

And your clear reproducible evidence that you have an everlasting life.
Explain how everlasting life trumps immortality by infinity. Any mathematical equations to support this concept?

 

[Bear Wild]

. . . Where science and myth meet, Adam represents the entire population of the first life-form.



John

What are you trying to say here?

 

[Bear Wild]

. . . 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

It is good you do not leave the carrots, rhubarb and rotting potatoes in your pocket but they mean more to life than the irritation to an oyster does.

 

[epronovost]

The lobster is not immortal. . . And neither am I.

Actually one is biologically immortal in the sense it cannot die of old age, but you do. Neither lobsters or humans are literally immortal in the sense that they cannot die in any way shape or form.

I have everlasting life. Which trumps immortality by infinity.

This is a delusional claim without any shred of evidence. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibility. You can believe if you want, but don't expect to convince people of the veracity of such claims and holding it as a proven fact can only present evidence of insanity,

 

[exchemist]

. . . 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

You mean it's a load of old cock?

Seriously, there is nothing in Genesis to say that Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden because of sex - and certainly nothing to suggest that sex had anything to do with Original Sin. This notion is the product of a diseased attitude to sex. Original Sin was disobedience to God's command not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

According to Genesis there were already plants and animals reproducing before Adam was created. There is nothing in Genesis to suggest they did so by asexual budding - until Adam came along and messed everything up.

 

[Altfish]

. . . 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

Ha!

 

[exchemist]

. . . 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

Vague rhetorical questions are not how it works in science. For the bible to be considered scientific, you need to explain:
i) what the theory or theories is,
ii) what observations it predicts we should be able to make and
iii) what examples there are of these observations, that corroborate the theory.

Asking me whether I, personally, have a theory of something or not, is beside the point.

Would you like to have another go at explaining your idea, along the lines I've indicated? I suggest you pick just one process that you claim the bible offers a scientific theory for, and indicate how one would go about testing this theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps the scientists should set their biology books aside and look at what the greatest Book ever written has to say about meiosis and polar body as it relates to Messiah?

The bible has nothing to say about meiosis.

And if (actual) answers are found to biological questions, they will be found through the study of biology. Not by reading ancient books written by ignorant iron age goat herders who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

. . . I think you may have made a semantic gaff since it's not that the scientists are unsure. They haven't a clue to be sure or unsure about. They have no theory for the existence of meiotic sex.

So? There was a time of "not having a clue" concerning EVERY theory known to science, before the theories were formulated.

You're making a gigantic argument from ignorance.

On the other hand, the Bible explains it to a tee in a manner that fits the current scientific framework of evolution and natural selection.

No, the bible has nothing usefull to say about meiosis.
Nore does it matter at all what the bible has to say, as they are just claims in ancient books.

If you think you have an answer to this unresolved question, by all means present it (including the evidence in support of it). It doesn't matter where the answer originally comes from. Claims fall and stand on their own merrit, not on the source that produced it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does this greatest book ever written explain why God did such a crappy job on reproduction? Errors in meiosis is the leading cause of birth-defects. Is there some reason that God wanted children to be born with birth defects?

It's a test of their "faith".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

. . . I see. You appear to be under the miss-impression that you are yourself omniscient and omnipotent

He isn't and doesn't need to be.
All he has to do is read the bible and compare its claims against reality.

That alone is enough to dismiss it as the book you claim it is.

. . . What need have you of a messiah or a god.

What you need, is an education in logical fallacies and perhaps also epistemology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The bottom line in any good discussion of meiosis is that science has no viable theory for why it exists.

Which has absolutely no relevancy to the accuracy of your claims.

Science not having an answer, in no way increases the credibility of your claims.
You're engaging in a god of the gaps, an argument from ignorance.

Your claims have a burden of proof. And that burden isn't met by pointing out that science doesn't know. Neither is it met by pointing to the bible - as that is just piling on even more claims, resulting in an even bigger burden of proof.

There are ideas and discussions, of course, but they haven't yet provided even a basic, general, theory of the purpose of meiosis

Which doesn't advance your case by even only a nanometer.

even though it's staring them right in the face.

That is your claim, which has a burden of proof which you haven't even begun to only try to meet.

Merely repeating your claims ad nauseum isn't going to count as evidence either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

. . . 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

Making stuff up and / or producing bare assertions, is not a cure for ignorance.
It makes you still ignorant, while only pretending that you are not.

I can make up a story as well. Doesn't mean it's true.

You still haven't even begun to try and meet your burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

. . . 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.

Please cite a single scientific discovery which was the result of "unwrapping truths hidden in the myths of the torah" instead of actual scientific research.

Or in other words: a single scientific discovery that was obtained by reading a 2000 year old text instead of actually engaging in empirical scientific research.

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.

But it is quite possible to re-phrase and as a result misrepresent.

 

[John D. Brey]

Seriously, there is nothing in Genesis to say that Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden because of sex - and certainly nothing to suggest that sex had anything to do with Original Sin.

. . . Your statement reminds me of a scene in, A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise says "There's nothing whatsoever to suggest a murder has taken place." To which his assisting attorney says, "You mean except the dead body"?

The product of the original sin is stated to be painful childbirth. The painful child is Cain. The first murderer. The first product of the first sin.



John

 

[viole]

Two of our foremost modern evolutionists have failed to explain to their own satisfaction the advantage of this extraordinary procedure [meiosis] for the individual organism. . . When we try to solve the paradox of the cost of meiosis, perhaps instead of worrying about how sex helps the organism we should search for replicating `engineers' of meiosis, intracellular agents which actually cause meiosis to happen . . . Although at present it is just a joke to picture chromosomes being dragged kicking and screaming into the second anaphase by ruthlessly selfish centrioles or other miniature genetic engineers, stranger ideas have become common place in the past. And, after all, orthodox theorizing has so far failed to dent the paradox of the cost of meiosis.

Richard Dawkins.​

Of all evolution's pesky problems, for instance, irreducibly complex structures and organisms, design without a designer, etc., etc., meiotic sex, and meiosis and polar body in particular, present the ultimate Gordian knot. They standout like a sore thumb challenging materialistic scientists to put their money where their mouth is and explain why organisms would pay so high a cost for meiotic sex when the smartest mammals around, with the fastest computers, and the best educations money can buy, can't, for the life of them, even dent the paradox of meiosis and polar body. Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan second Richard Dawkins:

At first --- even second-glance, this kind of sex [meiotic] seems a superfluous and unnecessary bother. It has none of the virtues of the free bacterial genetic transfer associated with the world-wide microcosm. In the economic terms that biologists have used to describe it, the `cost' of this kind of sex-producing special sex cells with half the usual number of chromosomes, finding mates, and timing and performing the act of fertilization-seems all out of proportion to any possible advantage.​

Perhaps the scientists should set their biology books aside and look at what the greatest Book ever written has to say about meiosis and polar body as it relates to Messiah?




John

Why do you think God designed animals in such a way to survive the design of other animals? For example, why design the lion to eat the gazelle, and the gazelle to escape the lion?

are those other animals designed by somebody else, or is God like those people who play chess against themselves?

and, in your opinion, why was God so obsessed with apes, to design the pinnacle of His creation, the very being He created the whole Universe for, the very being He will incarnate in, to be an ape?

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

. . . Your statement reminds me of a scene in, A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise says "There's nothing whatsoever to suggest a murder has taken place." To which his assisting attorney says, "You mean except the dead body"?

The product of the original sin is stated to be painful childbirth. The painful child is Cain. The first murderer. The first product of the first sin.



John

What nonsense. There is a whole catalogue of ill consequences for Adam and Eve, listed in chapter 2 verses 16-19, of which pain in childbirth is only one. Genesis 3:16-19. And I repeat, the first sin was nothing to do with sex.

The interpretation of Genesis you are putting across is perverted and creepy.

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, because you decided to compare a single cell organism living in absolutely perfect conditions compared to a complex animal who doesn't live in perfect condition. With time, in non absolutely perfect condition, all organism degrade to a certain point. They suffer from disease, injuries, stress of all sorts, etc. That's why no biologically immortal creatures has been alive continuously for millions of years.

. . . Which segues into the meat of this thread: the organism's desire to trade an immortality subject to environmental stresses leading to death, anyway, for true immortality and everlasting life.

That organisms found a way to do that, and that the salvation from the external threats comes through meiosis and polar body, is a revelation of unimaginable dimensions.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What nonsense. There is a whole catalogue of ill consequences for Adam and Eve, listed in chapter 2 verses 16-19, of which pain in childbirth is only one.

The woman's punishment, for her side of the sin, is painful childbirth. Mind you it's her first child, revealing to those with ears to hear, precisely what her end of the sin was. The tail end.



John