FROM GOO TO THE ZOO, TO ME and YOU - PANSPERMIA.

[FJK]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Evolution is a broad term. That’s why I was specific in my post. I used “molecular evolution” to refer to changes at the DNA level and “organismal evolution” to refer to changes in a species. The mechanisms and outcomes of of these types of evolution can be directly observed. Changes in allele frequencies and changes in phenotype are very commonly observed.

The implications of these types of changes is that, given enough time, large scale changes can occur. The scientific community has known about evolution for roughly 150 years. This is clearly not enough time to directly observe origins of new organisms at higher taxonomic levels. Instead, we have to rely on indirect evidence, like the fossil record. The fossil record also strongly indicates large-scale evolution over periods of millions of years.

 

But no examples of what's been observed?

Just speculative opinions about the "fossil record"?

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

But no examples of what's been observed?

Just speculative opinions about the "fossil record"?

Are you asking for examples of molecular evolution, organismal evolution, or large-scale evolution. If you are looking for examples of large-scale evolution, they occur over millions of years and we’ve been paying attention to evolution about 150 years. It isn’t a reasonable request.

There is a huge difference between evidence-supported conclusion and “speculative opinion” regarding the fossil record.

[Dennis1209]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

No one knows what a “kind” is in scientific terms, let alone if there are physical barriers in place between them. 

I understand the hesitancy. It is difficult to imagine changes THAT considerable over even millions of years. The fossil evidence strongly suggests that modern reptiles and modern mammals did indeed share a common ancestor.

 

Embarrassing for NASA, honestly, but as a member of the scientific community (I’m a biology professor), I promise that panspermia has never been anything other than a fringe idea.

I am not credentialed on the subject, but let me ask some evolutionary questions.

What part of our cardiovascular system can we live without?

• The heart that pumps blood.
• The lungs.
• The piping veins, arteries, supply, and return.
• The blood itself, oxygen, nourishment, healing, clotting, etc.

In other words, these must be commeasurable and exact to sustain life. One can't come first and evolve the rest unless, in the miracle of the womb, after its kind. A kind of cat does not produce a kind of dog. A human fetus will not develop into an appendage.

Not to mention the other organs that support the cardiovascular system, cleansing and filtering it.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  😊

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[one.opinion]

35 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

What part of our cardiovascular system can we live without?

• The heart that pumps blood.
• The lungs.
• The piping veins, arteries, supply, and return.
• The blood itself, oxygen, nourishment, healing, clotting, etc.

We can’t live without any of these parts of the cardiovascular system (including the lungs, which are part of the respiratory system). However, the conclusion that they could not have evolved is a faulty assumption. Are you aware that there are many animals with some form of circulatory system, but without hearts? And millions of species that have hearts, but not blood vessels? Theses simpler versions of circulatory systems show us that it is possible for more complex circulatory systems to have evolved.

47 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

A kind of cat does not produce a kind of dog.

Obviously not. No one believes this happens. But if a certain population of a species remained isolated, changes in that population could eventually become sufficient to prevent reproductive compatibility and become a new species as a result. This actually happened in populations of mice on a small island called Madeira over the last several hundred years. Just imagine what could happen over millions of years.

55 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Clearly living things produce offspring that are the same kind. There is no claim in the Bible that kinds are unchanged, and there is observable evidence to show us that living things do change over time.

[Dennis1209]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

We can’t live without any of these parts of the cardiovascular system (including the lungs, which are part of the respiratory system). However, the conclusion that they could not have evolved is a faulty assumption. Are you aware that there are many animals with some form of circulatory system, but without hearts? And millions of species that have hearts, but not blood vessels? Theses simpler versions of circulatory systems show us that it is possible for more complex circulatory systems to have evolved.

Obviously not. No one believes this happens. But if a certain population of a species remained isolated, changes in that population could eventually become sufficient to prevent reproductive compatibility and become a new species as a result. This actually happened in populations of mice on a small island called Madeira over the last several hundred years. Just imagine what could happen over millions of years.

Clearly living things produce offspring that are the same kind. There is no claim in the Bible that kinds are unchanged, and there is observable evidence to show us that living things do change over time.

Good conversation.

As I alluded to previously, I am not qualified scientifically to debate the issue. It boils down to our belief system with two opposing views and sides.

Not to debate or change the subject, but from biblical study and the preponderance of biblical evidence as I interpret it, I am persuaded the Earth is older than 6-10 thousand years. There are two opposing sides on this subject also, as you know. I cannot say which view is correct. It is what I know as a secondary issue that does not interfere with the core tenets of our faith.

However, I firmly believe humans have only been around six to ten thousand years and have not changed or evolved in "kind." I see adaptation, species, resistance, and mutation in kinds occurring.

I now pay particular attention to all those boring "and begets" genealogies I once speed-read through in the Bible. The generational genealogy of Christ is recorded back to David, then to the first man, Adam. The Bible painstakingly lists them for the royal lineage of Christ and the history of the human race back to the first man.

I think Ussher was the first to go through the genealogies and assign a date to the Genesis six-day creation account, coming up with 4004 B.C. I suspect there may be some slight errors in his dating, but it is too long to cover this opinion.

Another factor to consider with at least two sides is the Genesis 6:1-4 account, what Peter and Jude echo on, and the reason for Noah's flood. There were giants on the Earth in those days and after that.

It is somewhat related to the scope of this conversation, and as a biologist, you would know better than I. Our DNA is remarkably close percentage-wise to that of other animals. What percent of human gene and DNA change would it take for us not to be fully human as created? What does it mean to be human as created? I believe DNA tinkering happened in antiquity and is occurring at present.

If my and many others' thoughts are correct concerning our interpretations, there was undoubtedly a DNA change in animals and humans from as created initially—another topic requiring a long explanation of that view.

It all comes down to our exegesis of scripture or belief in secular evolutionary theory and its founder. But as I stated elsewhere, the former debate is no longer allowed in secular scholarship and most universities because it points to a creator God.

I keep checking the pine cones switching to acorns under the pine tree, but I do not have millions and millions of years, LOL.

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Not to debate or change the subject, but from biblical study and the preponderance of biblical evidence as I interpret it, I am persuaded the Earth is older than 6-10 thousand years. There are two opposing sides on this subject also, as you know.

I was raised in a conservative Christian home and this is exactly what I believed. Twelve years of education in biology and the evidence I consistently encountered slowly changed my mind. I will never look down on anyone for holding this personal belief.

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

I cannot say which view is correct.

In moments of introspective honesty, I cannot say which is correct, either. I try to acknowledge terms like “I believe” and “the evidence supports”, but I probably do slip into language that indicates certainty from time to time.

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

It is what I know as a secondary issue that does not interfere with the core tenets of our faith.

I agree with you 100% here. As I mentioned, I will never look down on anyone holding a belief in young earth creationism. I know as I grew up, and I know from what my own students have told me, there are many young earth creationists that hold the age of the earth question as one of primary importance, which it is not. I believe strict adherence to the view has led to many young people experiencing a crisis of faith when they do learn about the evidence supporting a much older earth and universe.

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Our DNA is remarkably close percentage-wise to that of other animals. What percent of human gene and DNA change would it take for us not to be fully human as created?

That’s a very difficult question to answer. I can offer a bit of a comparison, though. Depending on the type of measurement used, the chimpanzee and human genomes are 95-98% similar. In one hand, the numbers indicate strong similarity. In the other hand, when considering the size of the genomes (about 3.2 billion base pairs), that 2-5% works out to be a LOT of small changes.

[Dennis1209]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I was raised in a conservative Christian home and this is exactly what I believed. Twelve years of education in biology and the evidence I consistently encountered slowly changed my mind. I will never look down on anyone for holding this personal belief.

In moments of introspective honesty, I cannot say which is correct, either. I try to acknowledge terms like “I believe” and “the evidence supports”, but I probably do slip into language that indicates certainty from time to time.

I agree with you 100% here. As I mentioned, I will never look down on anyone holding a belief in young earth creationism. I know as I grew up, and I know from what my own students have told me, there are many young earth creationists that hold the age of the earth question as one of primary importance, which it is not. I believe strict adherence to the view has led to many young people experiencing a crisis of faith when they do learn about the evidence supporting a much older earth and universe.

That’s a very difficult question to answer. I can offer a bit of a comparison, though. Depending on the type of measurement used, the chimpanzee and human genomes are 95-98% similar. In one hand, the numbers indicate strong similarity. In the other hand, when considering the size of the genomes (about 3.2 billion base pairs), that 2-5% works out to be a LOT of small changes.

I found an interesting and unusual topic that might relate to biology. Some facts are thrown in with some speculation of what I see forming.

There are many today who are heavily into the occult Satanic worship and purportedly sold their soul to Satan for fame and fortune. Some have come out and publicly admitted it. I could name a couple of famous rock stars doing satanic things and lyrics on stage. I want to mention one who came out of the new age and occult, now Pastor of Sunrise Church in Las Vegas, Pastor Billy Crone. He is the expert when wanting to know about satanic worship and the occult. But anyway.

I will not get into the unpardonable sin, other than to say I do not think anyone can commit it, not witnessing the miracles of the Holy Spirit firsthand. I believe today, the unforgivable sin is dying without accepting Christ as their Savior.

This leads me to the age of Grace, where even devil worshippers can see the light and be saved through the Grace of God and repent. I have a suspicion and conjecture about the mark of the Beast. Those who take it are irrevocably damned, with no possible forgiveness.

The Lord did not die on the old rugged cross for the angels, animals, or hybrids if one subscribes to the literal interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. The Lord died for humanity, created in His image and likeness; what does that imply?

Today, it is not a conspiracy theory to say gene therapy and D.N.A. tinkering are not happening, with crisper cas9 kits available to anyone. With every technological advancement intended and used for good, governments convert and use it for military weapons of death on the battlefield.

The announced creation of super-soldiers for the battlefield, astronauts to better withstand the vigors and dangers of space, their goal is to engineer people who need less food and sleep, enhance their vision, hearing, and senses, have more endurance, are faster, and feel less pain. How does one accomplish that with an Iron Man-type suit?

Combined with D.N.A. tinkering, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and micro-implants, it is not unreasonable to surmise something extreme is on the horizon people will line up and want. Detection and intervention of the onset of a heart attack or cancer, those with feeble vision receiving 10/10 vision, the human intellect and brain capacity substantially increased with bio enhancements, and so on.

It reminds me of those who receive the mark of the Beast. Sure, a requirement is the worship of the Antichrist and Satan. Why can't they in the Tribulation recant and repent of their sin like today, and receive forgiveness and accept the Lord as their Savior? I would have to call that an unpardonable sin.

Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29. But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

 

What happened between this dispensation and what changed for those who accepted the M.O.B.?

I have suspicions that something in the mark makes them less than humans, as created biologically as an enhancement that cannot be changed or reversed.

G.M.O. food has taken over the planet; comparably, there is not enough heirloom or non-modified seed to replace G.M.O. if it fails or mutates generationally. Because of engineering, stringent, and enforced patents, G.M.O. seeds cannot be used for the next crop. Monsanto and a couple of others control the globe's food production, and we are at their mercy.

The World Health Organization and their government adherents came close under COVID-19 to marginally isolating those who refused the jab. To have proof of vaccination, forbidding travel or assembly, no access to government or private establishments, and even trying to outlaw going out in your own yard.

It is just like me to get off my own topic.  😊

[Ray12614]

Great topic Dennis!

My position on all of these matters discussed is this; The Bible world view should not be validated as true based on physical evidence (although there is much physical evidence that confirms this), but, the correct interpretation of the physical evidence around us should be validated by the Bible. 

Since true science is tainted by secular world views, their conclusions many times are false.

Frankly, Jesus knows much more than all the PHDs (post hole diggers) in every university put together in one room . . . .  so I will go with Him and what He says.