Did God use evolution to create life

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Here is some interesting info I found:

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Christian evolutionists would never say "chance"

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Christian evolutionists would never say "chance"

If they use maths for reality checks they will use that word a lot. Monte Carlo methods can be thought of as statistical simulation methods. When i was taught math models, changes were games of chance.

Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will move on to a future generation.

The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation.

The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation.

I group beliefs of evolution into 7 churches. Many are into the modern synthesis now and many have moved on several years ago.

If you go get an MBA in a strong school, all the "quants" on wall street use risk theory and do simulation. A good quants person can do prediction in genetics.

Most biology people are crippled in maths. They really can't understand how quantative analysis tells us even evolution up to eukaruyotes is impossible.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

If they use maths for reality checks they will use that word a lot. Monte Carlo methods can be thought of as statistical simulation methods. When i was taught math models, changes were games of chance.

Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will move on to a future generation.

The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation.



I group beliefs of evolution into 7 churches. Many are into the modern synthesis now and many have moved on several years ago.

If you go get an MBA in a strong school, all the "quants" on wall street use risk theory and do simulation. A good quants person can do prediction in genetics.

Most biology people are crippled in maths. They really can't understand how quantative analysis tells us even evolution up to eukaruyotes is impossible.

Christian evolutionists believe God evolved life on the planet, thus a Christian evolutionist would not say it was by chance

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Christian evolutionists believe God evolved life on the planet, thus a Christian evolutionist would not say it was by chance

My irony meter is vibrating. How do you get genetic drift and variation?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

My irony meter is vibrating. How do you get genetic drift and variation?

You don't think God could do it?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You don't think God could do it?

The words "God" and "DO" suddenly remove the use of the word evolution.
The correct term is creation. Form shape as Jeremy says. It is fascinating how many more restrictions are built into the changes possible. Darwin thot it was an accident.




Allele and the frequency of one of the alleles is a/(n*N) tells us how often a family has a redheaded kid. But there are no new and unique hair coolours. Diploid genes grant a new number of chances but with reastrictions. Even junk DNA is not junk as once thought. Lot and Abrams stripe /spot heards were an example of deviations from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

But we still aren't getting evolution. Definiotely do not see the high quantity of info added to the genome to cause novel structures.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

The words "God" and "DO" suddenly remove the use of the word evolution.
The correct term is creation. Form shape as Jeremy says. It is fascinating how many more restrictions are built into the changes possible. Darwin thot it was an accident.

No they don't remove the word. BTW you didn't answer the question. Could God do it or not?

Forget Darwin, I don't give a hoot what he thought. You're argument doesn't sound logical. It presumes God could not cause evolution to make all the various species His way.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

The words "God" and "DO" suddenly remove the use of the word evolution.
The correct term is creation. Form shape as Jeremy says. It is fascinating how many more restrictions are built into the changes possible. Darwin thot it was an accident.




Allele and the frequency of one of the alleles is a/(n*N) tells us how often a family has a redheaded kid. But there are no new and unique hair coolours. Diploid genes grant a new number of chances but with reastrictions. Even junk DNA is not junk as once thought. Lot and Abrams stripe /spot heards were an example of deviations from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

But we still aren't getting evolution. Definiotely do not see the high quantity of info added to the genome to cause novel structures.

You may have been thinking of Laban's herds (Genesis 30:34 and following). Perhaps you could explain how whittling poplar branches will affect the frequency of the haploid n selections.

Or, perhaps not. Anyhoo...

The "problem" of "no new and unique hair coolours" was answered back in the 1980s with the Punk Rock Movement. If you are reaching for the "No New Information Can Be Added To the Gene Pool" argument, that has been debunked so many times that it really deserves its own thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

And a briefer discussion is found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

The words "God" and "Do" - DO NOT remove evolution from the discussion. The selective breeding as practiced by Jacob in Genesis 30, involves Micro-Evolution to be effective.

Did "God" "do" the selection of the animals? Perhaps, using Jacob? Maybe, it at least appears so. Whatever happened, the end result was a process of Micro-Evolution.

I don't have any explanation for Jacob's attendant use of Sympathetic Magic (whittling the bark off of poplar sticks so that they would appear to be "spotted" and so forth), nor for that matter, other uses of Sympathetic Magic in the Bible (2 Kings 2:21, 2 Kings 6:5-7; Mark 7:33-34 and many others).

Jesus "could have" healed that deaf man by simply speaking the Word! Why He chose to do things the way He did (mixing mud), I don't know (Romans 9:20). For some reason He often appears to be mixing the elements from the earth to produce a desired outcome.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

My irony meter is vibrating. How do you get genetic drift and variation?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You don't think God could do it?

So? Couldn't God cause variation?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So? Couldn't God cause variation?

We covered that. He said so in his scriptures. The scriptures the evolutionsts say are NOT to be taken literally. (v. 34) 'Agreed,' said Laban. 'Let it be as you have said.'

(v. 35) That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons.
Coat Color Alleles are not evolution. They are variation that already exists in the genome. Those coloration features are passed to offspring.


Drosophila melanogaster Shows us variation

The d melanogaster sequenced genome of 165 million base pairs has been annotated and contains approximately 13,767 protein-coding genes, which comprise ~20% of the genome out of a total of an estimated 14,000 genes.
We see high fecundity rates. 2,000 eggs per female. No one has found ones in the past that started developing novel structures. The variation is between male and female.

Just the eye.

PLCβ hydrolyzes phosphatidylinositol (4,5)-bisphosphate (PIP2), a phospholipid found in the cell membrane, into soluble inositol triphosphate (IP3) and diacylgycerol (DAG), which stays in the cell membrane. DAG or a derivative of DAG causes a calcium selective ion channel known as TRP (transient receptor potential) to open and calcium and sodium flows into the cell. IP3 is thought to bind to IP3 receptors in the subrhabdomeric cisternae, an extension of the endoplasmic reticulum, and cause release of calcium, but this process doesn't seem to be essential for normal vision.

Raghu P, Colley NJ, Webel R, et al. (2000). "Normal phototransduction in Drosophila photoreceptors lacking an InsP(3) receptor gene". Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience 15 (5): 429–45. doi:10.1006/mcne.2000.0846. PMID 10833300.

In common language, There are ways in which photoreceptive cell structures work. The enzymes to form the cells must be changed for some of the different eyes to operate.