Meiosis: The Science of Messiah.

[Dan From Smithville]

In the Darwinian theory of evolution, the environment produces the selection pressures that cause organisms to change according to which organisms survive the dangers and take advantage of the advantages which exist in the environment.

Environment does not produce pressures. Environment is the pressure. It does not cause organisms to change. It acts on the natural variability that exists or arises in a population of organisms..

Until more recently, Darwinists were adamant that there was no thoughtful, or design oriented, survival strategy in the organism itself. The environment and the environment alone determined which organisms would live, and which would die.

There is still no evidence of design or a designer.

Darwin is not the central figure of some religion and those that accept evolution are not followers called Darwinists.

When we add to that picture the fact that the early organisms were all immortal, they only died if the environment killed them, we have the basis for not only understanding the evolutionary development of mammals, but once we understand the events that led to mammals, we can understand one of the greatest secrets hidden in nature's admittedly rich arsenal of secrets, the secret guarded by nature's death-wielding serpent of death: the secret of what meiosis has to do with the ancient, almost universal, mythological concept of a messianic son of God?

Okay. So nothing scientific. Got it.

Are you aware that the first organisms were for the most part immortal? They only died if the environment ended their life. They didn't grow old and die through death programmed into the very DNA of the organism.

What is "for the most part immortal"? How can you be mostly, nearly or partially immortal? What is your evidence that they did not grow old and die? Other than a belief, I mean.

Do you thus realize that there was a trade made between the environment, and the organism, that allowed some of the selection pressures completely owned by the environment (initially) to be shared with, and by, the organism: that the organisms accepted death into the previously immortal DNA in a trade for getting to pay a role in the selection of which organism would live, and which would die?

I had no idea. Tell me more. Can you expand on this baseless claim with something akin to evidence?

If you understand these two truisms you have the key to unlocking the greatest secret of the Bible: the person and purpose of an alleged messianic son of God within a purely scientific framework.



John

Are you writing a follow up to the Da Vinci Code? I see a lot of claims with little substance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . 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

Not seeing something that is not there does not require one be omniscient or omnipotent. Just observant and honest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . 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

Amusing speculation, but not really the answer people are asking for. But you are smooth. I bet no one has noticed your dodge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

This does sort of sound creepy to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . You might be missing my point. I'm claiming that the evolution of sex allowed the organisms to enter the realm of "selection" for survival where early on the environment alone determined which immortal organism would die, and which would survive.

Sex allows for the selection of mates deemed to add survival qualities to the mixing of the genes. Organisms select mates according to instincts for survival culled over eons and eons.

Every organism, like every nation, makes mindful choices about how to survive longer than other organisms or nations. The winners live. The losers die off.

The antediluvian nation of Lower Bohemia was wiped clean off the map by the wrath of God.



John

Natural selection exists in asexual populations too. You are describing sexual selection that occurs in sexual populations along with selection from other environmental factors.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . The Bible, interpreted with some care, has that affect on many people.



John

I can see that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK that's it.

This all sounds increasingly medical. I'm putting you on Ignore.

I appreciate how you phrase this. I also am coming around to consider that possibility myself.

 

[John D. Brey]

Meiosis is not sex. It is the division that leads to the germ cells (sperm and egg). The Bible says nothing on the subject and nothing in the Bible fits current scientific understanding of evolution.

. . . Thank you for that drive-by fruiting. . . Your work here is complete. . . No need for an ignore rant or ramus.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

It is clear that you have presumed your conclusion, and bent all your analysis to fit.

. . . I see your logic is of a kind with your knowledge of the history of science and your insight into the Bible.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Environment does not produce pressures. Environment is the pressure.

. . . That statement is a tautology.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

There is still no evidence of design or a designer.

. . . That statement's a tautology: undesigned design. . . Dawkins called the tautological, mythological beast, a Designoid.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Darwin is not the central figure of some religion and those that accept evolution are not followers called Darwinists.

. . . Darwin is as close to a man of the cloth as atheists get. He's their savior.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . I see your logic is of a kind with your knowledge of the history of science and your insight into the Bible.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What is "for the most part immortal"? How can you be mostly, nearly or partially immortal? What is your evidence that they did not grow old and die? Other than a belief, I mean.
I had no idea. Tell me more. Can you expand on this baseless claim with something akin to evidence?

Death did not appear simultaneously with life. This is one of the most important and profound statements in all of biology. At the very least it deserves repetitions: Death is not inextricably intertwined with the definition of life. . . With only a handful of exceptions, single-celled organisms reproducing exclusively by simple fission lack one feature that ultimately brings death to all single-cells that have sex, and all multicellular organisms, including human beings: senescence, the gradual, programmed aging of cells and organisms they make up, independently of events in the environment. Accidental cell death was around from the very first appearance of anything we would call life. Death of the organism through senescence ---programmed death----- makes its appearance in evolution at about the same time that sexual reproduction appears.

Professor William R. Clark, Sex and the Origins of Death, p. 54; 62-63.​

That's pretty much what the Bible tells us.



John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . Thank you for that drive-by fruiting. . . Your work here is complete. . . No need for an ignore rant or ramus.



John

So you have no cogent response. How unexpected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . That statement is a tautology.



John

No it is not. What you stated was completely wrong. The different aspects of the environment are the selection factors impacting populations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . That statement's a tautology: undesigned design. . . Dawkins called the tautological, mythological beast, a Designoid.



John

Is tautology from some sort of word of the day toilet paper?

There is no evidence of conscious design or a designer.

 

[John D. Brey]

Natural selection exists in asexual populations too. You are describing sexual selection that occurs in sexual populations along with selection from other environmental factors.

. . . In the age of immortality, the environment was the sole selector so far as death is concerned. The organisms would live forever if nothing in the environment said otherwise.

But it did. The environment selected some organisms to survive, and others . . . well . . . not so much. They died off.

So immortality lost it's luster since immortal organisms still died.

Fear not, the mind, hidden inside, enslaved and encapsulated inside, biological living matter, had everything under control. It allowed the serpent of death into the very holy of holies of the body, the womb, in a trade off with death. This trade off between living organisms, and the serpent of death, is the greatest story never told.

And trying to tell it now confirms for me why it's never been told since there has to be a target audience abel to receive it, so to say, rather than constantly and arrogantly raising Cain.



John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . Darwin is as close to a man of the cloth as atheists get. He's their savior.



John

An amazing amount of nothing in your response. How unexpected.

Darwin was a scientist that proposed a theory of evolution and a mechanism. What you choose to believe beyond the scope of that or any reason, does not make it so. Many Christians accept the theory of evolution too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Death did not appear simultaneously with life. This is one of the most important and profound statements in all of biology. At the very least it deserves repetitions: Death is not inextricably intertwined with the definition of life. . . With only a handful of exceptions, single-celled organisms reproducing exclusively by simple fission lack one feature that ultimately brings death to all single-cells that have sex, and all multicellular organisms, including human beings: senescence, the gradual, programmed aging of cells and organisms they make up, independently of events in the environment. Accidental cell death was around from the very first appearance of anything we would call life. Death of the organism through senescence ---programmed death----- makes its appearance in evolution at about the same time that sexual reproduction appears.

Professor William R. Clark, Sex and the Origins of Death, p. 54; 62-63.​

That's pretty much what the Bible tells us.



John

Apparently, you cannot expand on it. Thank you for clarifying that.