Interesting serious starting on PT

[klaus54]

How the first (2p.2q) fused individual reproduced is certainly an open question. This link gives some ideas. Try to ignore that it's a "skeptic" site and read the substance.

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsr...ave-offspring/

Now, here’s where sstar’s question comes into play.
The first organism that had this mutation would have a different number of chromosomes than everyone else in the population and that presents a problem. For example, we all know that horses and donkeys breed and form sterile mules. Part of the reason that mules are sterile is that horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62. Wouldn’t this same issue occur with the first organism that had the combination mutation?
The answer is… not really.
The reason is that, unlike the horse/donkey hybrid, that first individual who had the fused chromosome 2p and 2q still has all of the genetic material of the rest of the population. Horses and donkeys do not have the same genetic material, they are closely related, but not in the same species. The process is called a balanced Robertsonian translocation.
Now, when meiosis occurs, the chromosomes are mixed and separated. One half of each chromosome comes from each parent. So, the parent with the fused chromosome can provide a couple of different versions of the chromosome(s).
A normal individual would have a pair of 2p and a pair of 2q chromosomes.
The affected individual has a single 2p, a single 2q, and a fused 2pq. Follow me so far?
Now, when meiosis occurs in a normal individual, the gamete will have a single 2p and a single 2q.
In our affected individual, the gamete could have
a single 2p and a single 2q – resulting in perfectly normal offspring
a single 2pq – resulting in perfectly normal offspring. All the genetic material is present, just in an odd shape and the other parent’s 2p and 2q chromosomes will link up nicely.
a 2p and the 2pq – this is bad. This is basically what happens in some versions of Down’s syndrome cases.
a 2q and the 2pq – this is also bad, the same as number 3.
So, in the case of that first individual with the fused 2pq chromosome, it had (probably several) offspring where the gamete formed was of the #2 variety. Just the fused chromosome and that’s all. This would result in perfectly normal offspring.
- See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsr....sPvGachP.dpuf

[grmorton]

To Oxmixmudd
the thing I have never felt like I got across is that you can present a perfectly logical argument but if the perrson doesn't accept your assumptions, then the argument is useless for persuasion

As long as wee don't share the same definition of truth, our arguments go past each other. I understand what you say.. I don't agree with your standard of truth

[grmorton]

How the first (2p.2q) fused individual reproduced is certainly an open question. This link gives some ideas. Try to ignore that it's a "skeptic" site and read the substance.

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsr...ave-offspring/

A fusion with a snip of some length might make it hard to breed with the parent population. Thee chromosomes won't align any more

My point is that such a scenario for Adam is not ipso facto ruled out. It is well within the parameters of science butt one must move Adam back in time if we are to believe that they were the parents of all

Unfortunately, in my view, people either want to tie theBible to a false science or simply proclaim the Bible lacks any historical basis. Seems to me, both roads lead to the same conclusion. The bible is false..

[klaus54]

A fusion with a snip of some length might make it hard to breed with the parent population. Thee chromosomes won't align any more

My point is that such a scenario for Adam is not ipso facto ruled out. It is well within the parameters of science butt one must move Adam back in time if we are to believe that they were the parents of all

Unfortunately, in my view, people either want to tie theBible to a false science or simply proclaim the Bible lacks any historical basis. Seems to me, both roads lead to the same conclusion. The bible is false..

The link I posted does not rule it out. It gives a scenario for the how a 46 chromosome hominine could mate with a 48 chromosome individual and eventually over several generations produce a 46 chromosome sub-population.

K54

At that how I read it. Whether this first 46-chromosome individual is "Adam" is irrelevant to the need for a 46 chromosome homonine line.

K54

[klaus54]

Jorge, I will agree with you that the 'no brain' approach to the reading of the Flood narrative will conclude the flood was globlal. But this is more a response to our knowledge of the physical world growing to encompass the entirety of the 'little blue marble' without also allowing ourselves to learn about the culture and time frame in which the stories were writte. The (human) writer himself knew only of the smallest portion of what we now call 'The Earth'. What we don't know with certainty is this: does the writer simply retell a story passed down from the original Noah, who himself would not actually necessarily know the full scope of the Flood, or is this some sort of Divine dictation where we would expect God to be conveying the terms directly and thus their universality could be expected to reflect the Divine perspective.


So, we don't know with certainty the answer to the above, and we also know with relative certainty there is NO physical evidence that implies there was ever a global flood, and we ALSO know with certainty that most if not all the evidence for floods of various kinds point to the impossibility of them being part of a global deluge. It's not just the absense of evidence for, it is the massive quantity of evidence against.

The two together give rise to the exploration of a second path that is CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXT of some sort of local flood. In that reading, the writers expressions are phenomenal, just as you accept 'firmament' to be, they are not to be translated in the most simple sense. And the terms used (eretz specifically) lend themselves to a lesser scope (the land, the country) as oppposed to 'planet earth'.

And so we are confronted one again with the inconsistency of your hermeneutic and the biased nature of your claims. In Genesis 1 the 'equivocal' language of the 'raqia' is bent to ACCEPT what science tells us and leave behind the most obvious and historical rendering of the term Those that point out its historical and most literal meaning are dismissed. Yet in Genesis 7 the equivocal languange of eretz is bent AGAINST what science would tell us is true and the obvious and historical meaning is said to be 'the only possible conclusion'

As someone once said to me - "you can't have you cake and eat it too". Your approach to these two passages is arbitrary and are simply justifications for what you've already decided is true. They have no consistent or logical basis.

The effective reality is this: harmonizing scripture AND science becomes impossible if we do not allow for the human element in the writing of the text*. The writers wrote in their human language, using their human idioms, and drawing on their human culture to explain that which God was inspiring and revealing. The God of scripture uses men to accomoplish His purposes. And He works in spite of their weakness.

If we do not factor that into our understanding of the thing we call 'inerrancy', we end up in idiocy.


Jim

*this is not saying the text is 'merely' a human document, any more that accepting the humanity of Christ makes Him any less Divine

Jim makes an EXCELLENT point here!

1) Jorgian YECs accept modern science to help interpret ra'qia in Ge 1:6-7.

2) Jorgian YECs dismiss modern science in their interpretation of Ye Greate Fludde.

Remarkable...

K54

[Ucchedavāda]

A fusion with a snip of some length might make it hard to breed with the parent population. Thee chromosomes won't align any more

Changes in chromosome numbers are not necessarily associated with a loss of fertility; consider the Przewalski's horses, which are the last remaining truly wild horses. These an 2n = 66, while domesticated horses have an 2n = 64. Despite this, the Przewalski's horses are perfectly capable of interbreeding with domesticated horses, which is in fact a significant problem from a conservation point-of-view. Even the large-scale changes between horses and donkeys are not sufficient to prevent successful interbreeding; while most mules are infertile, a number of cases of fertile mules have been reported before (for example, Rong et al, 1985, "Fertile mule in China and her unusual foal").

Nor would a deletion necessarily cause problems; both deletions and insertions are a common form of variation in any gene pool (see e.g. "copy number variation"). Keep in mind that chromosomes are not rigid structures, so a perfect structural correspondence is not at all required for successful alignment / pairing.

[grmorton]

Changes in chromosome numbers are not necessarily associated with a loss of fertility; consider the Przewalski's horses, which are the last remaining truly wild horses. These an 2n = 66, while domesticated horses have an 2n = 64. Despite this, the Przewalski's horses are perfectly capable of interbreeding with domesticated horses, which is in fact a significant problem from a conservation point-of-view. Even the large-scale changes between horses and donkeys are not sufficient to prevent successful interbreeding; while most mules are infertile, a number of cases of fertile mules have been reported before (for example, Rong et al, 1985, "Fertile mule in China and her unusual foal").

Nor would a deletion necessarily cause problems; both deletions and insertions are a common form of variation in any gene pool (see e.g. "copy number variation"). Keep in mind that chromosomes are not rigid structures, so a perfect structural correspondence is not at all required for successful alignment / pairing.

Where did I say NECESSARILY? I alluded to the Equids a few posts ago. I am quite well aware that it doesn't have to be as I suggest. I also know that it is POSSIBLE to be as I said.

[klaus54]

Glenn,

I'm sorry I have read your works in detail. However, the impression I get is that a (2p, 2q) fusion individual (Adam?) was then divinely cloned by God with a replicated X-chromosome, producing a female clone (Eve?).

Am I on the right track?

K54

[Ucchedavāda]

Where did I say NECESSARILY? I alluded to the Equids a few posts ago. I am quite well aware that it doesn't have to be as I suggest. I also know that it is POSSIBLE to be as I said.

My apologies; I did not wish to imply that you argued that infertility was a necessary result of a chromosome fusion/fission.

My point is that a single chromosomal re-arrangement and/or deletion does not appear to be sufficient to explain speciation, in contrast to what your posts where you wrote "there are also events like chromosomal fusion/splitting that can act as speciation events or triggers", and that a "fusion with a snip of some length might make it hard to breed with the parent population". Excepting changes in ploidy, which are much more extreme events, it appears that quite a lot of accumulated variation is necessary for speciation, with individual variants acting to reduce cross-species fertility by a small amount. This also explains why such variants can become fixed in one of the populations, as any single variant which has a big effect on between-group fertility would also be likely to impact within-group fertility.

[grmorton]

Glenn,

I'm sorry I have read your works in detail. However, the impression I get is that a (2p, 2q) fusion individual (Adam?) was then divinely cloned by God with a replicated X-chromosome, producing a female clone (Eve?).

Am I on the right track?

K54

I am impressed that you went to the effort. Few do.

Before I answer, I want everyone to know that the issue that brought me back was IS there a scenario underwhich Genesis can fit into modern science and remain historical. My efforts over the past 30 years shows that there IS a way to do it. I am NOT, as apparently Uchevedada (or however one spells that name) thinks, PROVING that it happened that way. As with the origin of life, even if people create life totally from mere chemicals to reproducing cells, one can't prove that that was the way Nature did it. One has only provided a POSSIBLE path to the origin of life.

Similarly, all I have ever attempted is to show that a historical-ish reading of Genesis can fit within modern scientific views. I nowhere claim that I can prove it happened that way, so Uchevedada and others who want to nit-pick about the fact that it might have been otherwise, don't bother, it is a waste of time. It could have been an infinitude of different histories or paths. As to the Equids, Prezwalski's horse, it and The Equids he discusses are thoroughly discussed in my book about the time I am discussing the origin of Adam, if I recall correctly.

Klause, Yes, you are on the right track. I didn't want to mess with the story as told in Genesis 2 about God making Adam alone, without a mate. I wanted to see how much of Genesis could be treated historically within science and within the assumed fact that we have a miraculous God. No one needs to tell me that miracles are not Science. I am well aware of that But I also believe in miracles and I believe in taking Scripture historically seriously if I can. It is hard for me to see that a person can be a Christian and not believe at the very least in the miracle of the resurrection.

I think it is utterly ridiculous for Christians to claim to believe in a resurrection but get horrified or embarrassed when other miracles appear in the Scripture, like floating ax-heads, talking donkeys and such. We christians should hold our heads high when faced with miracles in Scripture and accept them as such without shame or embarassment. Such events are one offs, unverifiable and must be taken on faith alone. But then, so must the resurrection be taken on faith. If one can swallow that a dead man arose, then what is the problem with God performing a miracle to create us from whatever He choses to make us from. After all, Jesus said "“I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” in Luke 19:40. Why would we believe Jesus is Messiah and be resurrected but get squeamish if he had made the stones to cry out?

I would point out that a religion without miracles is called a political party or a philosophy.

[grmorton]

My apologies; I did not wish to imply that you argued that infertility was a necessary result of a chromosome fusion/fission.

My point is that a single chromosomal re-arrangement and/or deletion does not appear to be sufficient to explain speciation, in contrast to what your posts where you wrote "there are also events like chromosomal fusion/splitting that can act as speciation events or triggers", and that a "fusion with a snip of some length might make it hard to breed with the parent population". Excepting changes in ploidy, which are much more extreme events, it appears that quite a lot of accumulated variation is necessary for speciation, with individual variants acting to reduce cross-species fertility by a small amount. This also explains why such variants can become fixed in one of the populations, as any single variant which has a big effect on between-group fertility would also be likely to impact within-group fertility.

Well, I owe you an apology for taking you to task again my preceding post. Please forgive this bristly old porcupine. I have spent too much time in my life debating these things with far too little to show for any of the effort, and even when in a good mood, some call me 'pissy' as Shadowmaster used to do on this list. I do have a bite and a sting, or as Jim calls it sometimes, a mean streak.

[oxmixmudd]

To Oxmixmudd
the thing I have never felt like I got across is that you can present a perfectly logical argument but if the perrson doesn't accept your assumptions, then the argument is useless for persuasion

Very good point and quite true.

As long as wee don't share the same definition of truth, our arguments go past each other. I understand what you say.. I don't agree with your standard of truth

Not a different definition of truth Glenn. Different sets of axioms and rules over which truth is evaluated. We should explore what those differences are.


Jim

[grmorton]

Very good point and quite true.



Not a different definition of truth Glenn. Different sets of axioms and rules over which truth is evaluated. We should explore what those differences are.


Jim

My definition of truth, requires some sort of experimentum crucis (crucial experiment). This comes from my grad school days in philosophy, as I said earlier. Without some means of determining which view is correct, truth can't be achieved. In theology there are no crucial experiments to perform. Because of that, claiming this or that theology is the true theology is meaningless. There is no way to determine truth without going to observational data. Observational data then becomes the only way to test between two views.

How would you test between the Framework theory and the anti-Egyptian theory or the Day-Age theory of what Genesis 1 is about?

P.S. after several years at the philosophy weekend at my ranch, I am amazed we have some kind of agreement on what it is that we should research.

for those listening in, I have a yearly philosophy weekend at my ranch. Jim and Kirk Bertsche of TW have attended for what 4 years?. It is an intellectual feast of argumentation and debate. No one agrees on much and it is quite fun.

[Kbertsche]

My definition of truth, requires some sort of experimentum crucis (crucial experiment). This comes from my grad school days in philosophy, as I said earlier. Without some means of determining which view is correct, truth can't be achieved. In theology there are no crucial experiments to perform. Because of that, claiming this or that theology is the true theology is meaningless. There is no way to determine truth without going to observational data. Observational data then becomes the only way to test between two views.

How would you test between the Framework theory and the anti-Egyptian theory or the Day-Age theory of what Genesis 1 is about?

But Glenn, doesn't your "Days of Proclamation" view have the same testability problem? In order to make Gen 1 "true", you push the "Days" back before the Big Bang. They become some sort of pre-temporal, pre-historical, non-observable "divine days" on which God proclaimed to His heavenly hosts how He would create the physical universe. Unless I misunderstand you, the sequence and timing of how God actually created everything in history do not need to line up exactly with His proclamation in prehistory, so where is the testability of your interpretation?

Note that I'm not arguing against your view. I think it is a perfectly valid view, and there a some good reasons to adopt it. But I don't think it avoids the testability problems of the Framework or ANE Theology views.

[grmorton]

But Glenn, doesn't your "Days of Proclamation" view have the same testability problem? In order to make Gen 1 "true", you push the "Days" back before the Big Bang. They become some sort of pre-temporal, pre-historical, non-observable "divine days" on which God proclaimed to His heavenly hosts how He would create the physical universe. Unless I misunderstand you, the sequence and timing of how God actually created everything in history do not need to line up exactly with His proclamation in prehistory, so where is the testability of your interpretation?

Note that I'm not arguing against your view. I think it is a perfectly valid view, and there a some good reasons to adopt it. But I don't think it avoids the testability problems of the Framework or ANE Theology views.

Kirk,

Everything before the BB is not scientific. I think your problem is that you think I am asserting that I am proving my Days of Proclamation view. I am not. No one can prove that. Anything pushed back before the BB is really untestable., but by doing this, I can make other things somewhat testable.

Absolutely the Days of Proclamation do not have to line up in temporal order with what happened in the actualization of the universe. Believing that Gen 1 represents the order of creation gives a big hammer to the atheists in that the order listed in Gen 1 doesn't match the order in history. Any interpretation that requires that the order of Gen 1 be the order in which things happened is false.

I think you misunderstood my question to Jim. Since we have a different view of how truth is obtained, I wanted to know how he tests which of those views is correct. If there is no methodology by which Framework view can be differentiated from Day Age view, then my question is is he merely choosing that which he likes rather than that which is true?

That nothing before the BB is testable is asserted by Steinhardt in Nature (thus it must be absolutely true), when he notes:


"The BICEP2 incident has also revealed a truth about inflationary theory. The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the ‘smoking gun’ proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible?"

"The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests. First, inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflaton, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome. Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multi*verse, every*thing that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable."

"This may seem confusing given the hundreds of theoretical papers on the predictions of this or that inflationary model. What these papers typically fail to acknowledge is that they ignore the multiverse and that, even with this unjustified choice, there exists a spectrum of other models which produce all manner of diverse cosmological outcomes. Taking this into account, it is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless."Paul Steinhardt, "Big Bang Blunder Bursts the Multiverse Bubble." Nature June 5, 2014, p. 9

The real question is: given a choice between believing a view that makes the Bible historical or believing one that makes the Bible historically false, why would one chose to make it false?

ps: Jim it is going to be a clear dark sky at the ranch tonight. Wish you were here with you binoculars, in spite of your bad view of truth