What would be some of the theological implications of evolution being true? Primarily talking about Christianity.
It would show that the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago and should be looked at as a guide to living a moral life rather than the word of God.
>>1367062
It took God a billion+ years to create mankind instead of one day.
The end.
>>1367088
I don't understand why Christians take genesis so literally. I'm an idiot and can understand that it could be a metaphor for a much bigger period of time...
It would show the biblical account of the origins of the world to be false (along with every other creation story in human history).
>>1367062
It would suggest that man is not special
>>1367100
>I don't understand why Christians take genesis so literally.
Literally no one does this except for WBC types and their offshoots in Africa.
Bump
>>1367062
There aren't any
>>1367062
Well the Pope said evolution is compatible with Catholicism.
So unless you are a heretic, you should be fine.
It seems to fuck up the idea of original sin. Most interpretations of original sin within the context of evolution that I've seen describe it as a poetic tale regarding man's changing consciousness and understanding of right and wrong. But that's not really a "fall" made of free will. That's basically God's genetic determinism making us become "fallen" creatures through no fault of our own.
>>1368140
Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.
>>1367100
Christians didn't historically take to be a metaphor for a much bigger amount of time and I doubt the original authors did either.
>>1368159
Remember the whole Copernicus debacle. This whole issue in America basically the same thing. They believe it'll "compromise scripture" and "corrupt worldviews." The stuff they thought Galileo's discovery would do to the church is the same stuff they claim Johansen (and others)'s discovery will do.
>>1368196
What the fuck's up with Adam?
That son of a bitch has no right to be smiling about anything.
>>1368200
Has to be as appealing to children as possible.
>>1368196
Is this convincing to people? Whether a fact as negative implications doesn't have any effect on whether its true or false.
>>1367077
/thread
>>1368229
They've been taught since birth that this specific denomination's interpretation is true, and that all others lead to degeneracy and moral relativism: behavior that seems unclean and evil to them.
>>1368252
Well I was raised in a religion too, but that didn't stop me from recognizing basic logical fallacies
>>1368260
Remember, these people are most likely Baptists. Y'know, the people whose practices led to every negative Christian stereotype from the 50s onward.
>>1368252
I would have figured "no diety" would be a lot closer to the bottom.
Did I forget to mention that creationists tend to use this dated reconstruction of Lucy in their seminars?
>>1367100
>I'm an idiot and can understand that it could be a metaphor for a much bigger period of time...
Yeah, but it's not written as a metaphor.
Metaphors usually have specific kinds of language and not "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth...", which is quite literal.
It is actually required that Christians believe in the Genesis creation narrative and the story of Adam and Eve as a literal truth, since these explain the origin of original sin and lay down the reasons for why Christ supposedly had to come down and sacrifice himself, and why it is necessary to 'accept' him.
If the Genesis is a metaphor, then it means Christcucks hold Jesus had to die for a metaphor.
>>1367062
It wouldn't affect it at all, except some american YEC fundies would get BTFO
>>1367100
>all Christians are Young Earth Creationists
American detected.
>>1368433
Not a Christfag, but you're conflating things though.
The creation story is false, and many Christians admit as much, but they can still claim that the metaphysical nature of the Adam and Eve story took place regardless.
The problem is when biblical teachings are in direct opposition to established scientific findings.
>>1368429
Remember, Hebrew is a very complex language where one word could have several different meanings in different contexts. Just look at "yom," a Hebrew word that could mean a number of things, ranging from "age" to "day."
Also, not a metaphor, a poem. It doesn't say "God made this, this and this at this moment," it says "God said 'let there be this,' and it was so and He saw that it was good."
>>1367100
Because it was supposed to be taken litterally.
Nothing in it suggests metaphor.
The interpretation had to change because the science game was too strong.
>>1368464
It only rarely means age. Age does not fit within the context of genesis.
https://youtu.be/dmr3AraLogw
>>1367062
evolution? no implications, since Christianity already accepted something similar, the seminal reasons
naturalistic evolution? a lot, but Christianity doesnt accept any naturalistic interpretation anyways
And neither should you
>>1368590
Moron
>>1368556
*tips*
>>1368575
What would you suggest then? I either take one or the other? That seems like a false dichotomy. I prefer a poetic interpretation rather than a literal gap.
>>1367062
>What would be some of the theological implications of evolution being true?
Easily rationalized by saying God created man using evolution, rather than just making him out of clay or whatever.
The only victim is the "molded in his image" thing, so we aren't godlike and divine by design, rather we are just meat. His favorite meat maybe, but still just meat.
Not that modern Christians are using the "in his image" thing much, its mostly used against him, to justify cloning and genetics as ethical, since we are only doing what God did, trying to create. He made us curious and he made us like himself, creators, so why not go and create?
>>1368919
I think some denominations interpret it to mean in His spiritual image, since God the Father has no true form, same for the Spirit, and Jesus was fully human and fully God.
>His favorite meat maybe, but still just meat.
Made me chuckle a bit.
>>1367100
>I'm an idiot and can understand that it could be a metaphor for a much bigger period of time...
I literally figured it out when I was 12, it's hardly a stretch, I mean what is 1 day to God himself?
>>1368909
I suggest nothing its false either way.
Any ibterpretation of yom as anything other than 24 hour days is wrong though.
>>1368119
You are an immature and rude individual.
There is no evidence that Jesus was married and therefore He did not have a wife who committed adultery.
Nor did he have a vagina.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Jesus was a bottom.
Bump
>>1368448
>but they can still claim that the metaphysical nature of the Adam and Eve story took place regardless.
What does this actually mean though? At what point did we make a choice that damned us?
>>1370607
Perhaps our ancestors being given the gift of a higher intellect, but squandering it by living like the beasts.
God used evolution as a tool to create us. He provided the initial "spark".
>>1370600
What the dubs is your point?
>>1368448
Hey man there was only Adam and Eve to begin with, we are all inbred descendants of them.
>>1370647
What do you mean? The footprint to the far right resembles a primitive human foot, or a highly derived ape foot.
Humans are too complex, we don't start off as a sperm and egg inside a sac in your "mom". That is utter nonsense, those cells are too simple to form into an organism that has trillions of cells. We arrive as babies delivered by storks to the front door of our parents, it is only logical.
>>1370640
A little vague for me but ok, I wonder, if this is really the narrative, God was expecting from us?
Well Said.
The same thing the Catholic Church has already done, which is continuously alter their ideology to fit modern knowledge so their followers don't feel stupid but instead feel like their book predicts, in some obscure way, everything that has ever happened or will ever happen.
>>1370656
Also, the footprint on the far right is the actual Afarensis (Lucy's species) footprint. It's just more creationist nonsense.
>>1368448
Can you enlighten us on these scientific findings you speak of? And if I may ask, can you believe 100% in these scientific findings?
>>1367062
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
For the Catholics it wouldn't matter.
For Creationists it presents a problem.
ITT: every one who believes in God is a six day creationist
Let it not be said that Fedorafags are not the most autistic people around.
Besides, Evolution is trash, the only thing it stands on in society is the atheists that justify the Dunning-Krueger effect.
There are plenty of real scientists that scoff at the theory.
Stop listening to talking heads like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet
>>1367062
None, really. It means the story of Adam and Eve is a myth and not history, but most Christians already think that.
>>1370991
>Intelligent design shill brutally assaults strawmen and insists that everyone outside of the field of biology can see how ridiculous evolution is for 37 minutes
Can you guys at least condense his central points so I don't have to regurgitate rebuttals verbatim but also don't have to watch another 23 minutes of his slow, self satisfied talking.
>I've personally counted how many changes it takes to turn a modern cow into a modern whale and I stopped at 50000
I'm going to go ahead and not believe that.
>Mangles homological criteria
Maybe I can stomach the rest of this.
>>1367062
>What would be some of the theological implications of evolution being true?
As in the evolution of Christianity?
>>1368099
Misclassified chimp bones do not constitute evidence for evolution.
>>1371161
>>1370991
>>1371086
>I don't understand the point of darwin's finches.
>mutations are always bad
Who is this Richard Lenski character? He did what now?
>life forms are like books or computer programs in the way that they are altered by mutations
Jesus fucking Christ
>Books being randomly copied and producing different books is equivalent to evolution
He just keeps going. Especially with the goal oriented evolution implication.
>Scientists do not self-criticize
The falsifiable hypothesis is falsifiable for a reason.
>People are forced to make bold claims to keep their funding so my opponent is wrong because he just won't admit it
>Some people fudge their data so all my opponents must be altering their results
>The intellectuals are peer pressuring people
>fucking marxism
>Insulting people makes them have better arguments. Constructive criticism is for nerds.
>I shouldn't need a reason to attack evolutionarytheory like actual evidence or anything. Maybe I don't even need armaments like a basic understanding of the state of evolutionary synthesis since Darwinism isn't the be all end all of Evolution.
>GET DEM NIGGERS TO SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
There.
I sat through it and tried to understand the points he was making of which there weren't many.
Basically all strawmen.
>>1368119
Fedora.jpg
>>1368159
>Christians didn't historically take to be a metaphor
Incorrect. I think it was Augustine, if I'm not mistaken, who said that Genesis was metaphor, and that was a thousand years ago.
>>1371315
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/01/was-augustine-a-young-earth-creationist/
>>1371315
There was also Origen.
http://creationwiki.org/Human_evolution
http://www.evoanth.net/2013/04/15/lucy-the-knuckle-walker-answers-in-genesis-v-evoanth/
Answers in Genesis: multi-million dollar corporation.
Evoanth: some British blogger from Liverpool.
>>1371437
Can someone please translate Origen's "Ye Oldene daeyse" speak? Those run-on sentences are a bitch to comprehend.
>>1372342
"How would a day exist before the sun, moon or even sky appeared, and why would you have a literal tree that could screw your creations over just sitting in the middle of the garden?"
That's what I got from it, anyways.
>>1368229
>Whether a fact as negative implications doesn't have any effect on whether its true or false.
Not to a very large majority of the world.
>>1372378
No them not liking it dies not change the fact that it is a demonstrable fact.
>>1371239
You know hes a microbiologist, a respected author and mathematician?
He's not some run-o-the mill critic talking about something he doesn't understand.
I'd also like to point out that you didn't really refute or address anything, you just kind of assumed that everyone else thinks it's as ridiculous as you think it is.
David Berlinski is also the only to guy to beat Christoper Hitchens in a debate.
>>1371028
He is a biologist....
He works with biologists....
He is critical because he is more than a biologist, he is a philosopher and mathematician as well, published a few books too.
These are legitimate criticisms from someone who access to the same information as the people he is critiquing.
>>1371086
>self satisfied talking
That's one of his criticisms of Dawkins....
>I'm going to go ahead and not believe that
Okay, he is a biologist and a mathematician.....
He has written books listing his criticisms.
It is a decent critique and offers at least scientific criticism from an insider point of view, he ins't some guy preaching from the pulpit nor is he an armchair philosopher.
Berlinski put in the work.
He even said that he isn't doing it to advocate ID, he said he did it for money.
Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc all made money off of books about science, evolution, atheism, etc.
Berlinski said if he cant cash in on the one side he might as well cash in on the other.
So he joined the discovery institute and brought to light some of the more serious problems that only experienced biologists encounter when dealing with evolutionary theory and its ancillaries.
He is well qualified and has an honest motivation.
Call money dishonest but he isn't a sensationalist as you can tell.
The man gets to the facts and lists them openly and honestly, its something I think we all can respect to a degree.
>>1371028
>What about the actual paleontologists, paleoanthropologists, and biologists?
A note on these guys.
Don't trust anyone but the biologists.
The guys at the museums wont tell you where they dug up the arrows that are in between the fossil structures.
Consider that many of these guys go directly from pre-cambrian to post-cambrian.
For anyone studying the fossil record honestly this should shoot up red flags left, right, and center.
If there is serious evidence for Evolutionary theory its going to be found in biology, not in the ground.
>>1368280
Really there shouldn't even be a no deity step if the final destination is atheism, which means not having a deity. Whoever made that image is a moron.
>>1367100
>I don't understand why Christians take genesis so literally.
Because it's meant to be taken literally. Your retarded reinterpretation thousands of years after the fact to fit new knowledge is just that, retarded.
>>1367062
None, since evolution is true and Christianity is still rolling along.
>>1373312
I don't actually care about his qualifications, they don't lend significant credence to his arguments in this case from my perspective.
I made my points in memetext.
Darwin's finches are just dismissed out of hand and called speculatory. They show that variability can come from small mutations and they show the principles of selection when for instance a drought happens or something similiar.
Mutations aren't always bad. This is obvious, mutations can be good, bad or neutral. They aren't majorly deleterious but rather mostly neutral, silent mutations if anything. I don't need to refute it.
Books or programs being changed aren't like mutations happening to a biological organism. This is also obvious to anyone who knows how genetics works. I don't need to refute it.
These are the only points in that post.
The rest I just greentexted because they are the only points he makes from that point on.
He strawmans his opponents heavily without actually addressing the underlying arguments they make.
The other two arguments I could sample are in my other post.
The one where he counts the 50000+ changes it would need to turn a cow into a whale for instance.
This is already a strawman. A modern cow doesn't turn into a modern whale.
But I just doubt he's actually gone through 50000 changes since there's only his word to go on it and it would take days of nonstop work just to satisfy that ridiculous strawman.
He kind of mangles homological critieria as well.
He mentions:
Similarity in embryology
Similarity in function
Similarity in morphological form
The second one is kind of obviously the odd one out since it would refer to a homoplasie as well.
As far as I know there's the:
Criteria of provable transition states, such as through embryology
Criteria of specific quality and structure
Criteria of location
And then he kind of accuses this as being a circular matter of definition in regards to common descent when really questioning homology came before evolution.
There are no implications with this, because evolution is already here, they just can't see it.
It's more fun to wonder about the theological implications of finding intelligent life in the universe.
But I think they would just "invite" the aliens to the church.
Christianity has always adapted to human's current necessities and knowledge, it's not something I would trust.
People living in modern society who actually goes to church every sunday are so full of themselves, they can't even conciebe the existence of other forms of life and other beliefs.
It's like they are in a completely different state of mind, like they are high on Jesus.
I understand them and respect them the same way as I respect tribes living in the jungle isolated with their own culture.
The only problem is that there will always appear that christian trying to convince me of joining their beliefs.
However, I feel sad for all those people noticing somehow that they believed and put their energy in something that just made them waste a part of their lifetime. So I don't usually debate them.
>>1373326
>These are legitimate criticisms from someone who access to the same information as the people he is critiquing.
I'd argue he only hypothetically has access to the same information.
He shows that he's not quite on the level in regards to a few things.
>That's one of his criticisms of Dawkins....
I've also never felt the compulsive need to listen to or read Dawkins work. I've never read anything he's written except for quotes and I've only heard several minutes of him talking on the rare occasions anyone on 4chan links to him.
I don't see why my point can be dismissed in this manner.
Just condense the central ideas posited in the video instead.
Don't do it now since I've already gone through all 37 minutes though obviously.
I'm fundamentally uninterested in reading his books in addition to this.
>Okay, he is a biologist and a mathematician.....
I only don't believe that he's compiled a list of the changes needed to go from cow to whale for his strawman argument.
>He even said that he isn't doing it to advocate ID, he said he did it for money.
Pretty sure it's not just a surface level thing as he has shown involvement with them.
>The man gets to the facts and lists them openly and honestly, its something I think we all can respect to a degree.
Not from what I can tell from the video.
He easily spends a good portion of it calling his opposition peer pressured, opposed to criticism, insists that they alter their data and make bold claims just so that they can keep their funding.
I go a bit more into the problems I found with the video in this post >>1373621
>>1368140
Original sin is the establishment of an identity as separate from god. Literally being born into a body places limits and differentiates you from all other life, and since god is all life simultaneously, it is the source of all suffering and sin. The fruit of knowledge in Genesis is the instantiation of self-awareness, metaphorically described as realization of one's nakedness and literally the realization of one's own body. Arguably, in terms of neurological development, such self-awareness does not occur until roughly four months, when the spindle-cells develop. Each life is a biochemical record of the process of self-awareness, progressing through stages of separation from god until ego-death occurs and a being finds union with all things. At least that's the best way I can describe it. Sounds sorta pompous and ass-hatted, but language is inherently limited in describing this sort of stuff.
>>1367062
Placing evolution in the framework of something that is "true" or "false" limits its utility as a metaphor for the process of life. This also goes for Christianity.
>>1372342
>>1372363
"Eden to the East" is also relevant, because even in Origen's day (and obviously at the time when Genesis was written as well) the territory immediately east of Caanan/Israel's chunk of the Levant was completely inhospitable desert. Anyone who refers to a magnificent and lush garden where that desert is would clearly be referring to an unreal place, as we might say "cloud-cuckoo land". It is entirely unlikely that someone native to the region would take the garden of Eden as a literal place.
>>1374446
But Eden was in Mesopotamia, not the desert. the Tigris and Euphrates go through it
>>1374464
>implying the jews thought eden was a physical location
>>1374486
why wouldn't they? they even named the tower of babel after babylon and a descendant of Cain founds Uruk. pretty obvious they thought a lot of their myths took place in mesopotamia, even thought they were themselves mesopotamians from Ur
>>1368433
>If the Genesis is a metaphor, then it means Christcucks hold Jesus had to die for a metaphor.
That's what the Ded Sea Scrolls say I believe
>>1368953
The thing is, wouldn't using days as a metric of time imply that these time periods (days) are of about the same length? I wouldn't mind if it was meants as era/eons, but since it's written as days it seems like really poor vocabulary choice to make in that case.
![god-brain[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4wHSa29.jpg "god-brain[1].jpg")
>>1367062
it would suggest that we are a part of nature in our current form and that religion has been a natural evolution of the human psyche
>>1367100
>Christians
Ahem, no
>American Protestants in the US South
>>1374811
>American Baptists in the US South
FTFY
>>1373621
>I don't actually care about his qualifications, they don't lend significant credence to his arguments in this case from my perspective.
This directly conflicts with >>1373681
>I'd argue he only hypothetically has access to the same information.
>He shows that he's not quite on the level in regards to a few things.
this
>>1373621
His qualifications carry the weight of a biologist, he is not as easily dismissed as a common layman.
Tell me you wouldn't dismiss a pastor at first glance when he spoke about quantum mechanics.
Darwins finches are irrelevant in Evolutionary theory, they don't matter, things change, however he goes into another point about the species barriers which negates the changes in the finches being called "evidence" in support of the theory.
He never said mutations are always bad...
Why isn't his analogy about books legitimate?
"I don't need to refute it." yes you certainly do.
"this is obvious to anyone who knows how genetics work"
You're a biologist?
Come on now, credentials are what prevents people like you from dismissing something from the point of personal incredulity.
>strawmans
No he doesn't, he posits what they're thinking but he doesn't outright call them liars.
He expresses reservations about them and gives reasons for it.
Prove that its a strawman, I don't think you can call a critique a strawman though so I think you're misusing the term.
A modern cow doesn't turn into a whale, correct. But if we knew evolution sufficiently then we should know what it would take to turn a cow into a whale.
he is not criticizing on the basis of a cow becoming a whale, he criticizing the lack of knowledge around it.
If we know evolution so well then we should know how many changes are necessary in order to make a cow into a whale.
You completely missed the point here.
>days of non-stop work
He does a make living criticizing Darwin....
Not to mention he'd be the most qualified, being a mathematician and a philosopher in addition to being a biologist.
>I actually doubt
I don't care.
It's there whether you doubt it or not.
You sound like your orthodoxy is being challenged.
He is critiquing it because its a tautology.
Its a philosophical problem and demonstrates a lack of scientific knowledge or at least in organization of the information.
>>1367062
It depends upon what you mean by "evolution".
>>1373681
He does have access to the information.
I doubt he is on the cutting edge, but that's kind of irrelevant since there is already a plentiful description of Darwianian theory and Evolutionary Theory.
Your point is being dismissed because its not an intellectual point.
He even points out in the video that his polemical attacks nor the ones of his opponents should be taken to seriously.
>I'm fundamentally uninterested in....
Thanks for the blog post.
>ID
Of course he's shown involvement with them.
He mentions that its like a gang in New York and another gang comes on the block you want to reevaluate who your friends are, even if you don't share their same views.
His words "It's a large tent, I expect I will be welcome."
>critiquing the motivations of the opposition somehow discredits the information put forth
He gave his opinion, he isn't trying to persuade anyone to anything other than the facts.
Notice how he kept his opinion only on the motives of his peers, didn't present it as fact or anything that should be taken seriously, as he said before polemics are just to provoke a more intellectual response.
You sound like you've already got a judgment on the guy and anything else he says you'll take it with a negative connotation....
>>1374970
[citation needed]
>>1368108
Friendship with the world is enmity with God.
>>1374930
I don't think it really conflicts with what I said.
I'm saying he only hypothetically has access to the same information because it seems like he's just not making use of it in his arguments so regardless of how qualified he is, he's just not bringing it to the fore and as such I don't care about his qualifications, I care about his arguments.
The criteria for homology are really basic beginner level biology stuff, yet he doesn't describe them correctly in the video as far as I can tell and insists that they are circular in nature which they aren't.
And then he just kind of likens mutations in an organism to random changes made to books or computer programs and that kind of seems like another beginner level mistake.
I'm not sure if I should draw any more attention to his cow-whale argument since I'm not sure how much that's just supposed to be a strawman constructed entirely for the purpose of being easily knocked down.
>>1367100
It's specifically written so that it is impossible to do so.
Yom. Day. Morning and evening. Day One.
Yom. Day. Morning and evening. Day Two. Yom. Day. Morning and Evening. Day Three.
I don't know why people who don't know God would be expected to know who God is, how God made the universe, why, or in what fashion.
To those of us who do, what God does is fascinating and infinite in scope, depth and breadth.
>>1374811
Yes, wouldn't want people thinking you believed the bible, now, would we.
>>1374446
Gee, I wonder if there were some sort of catastrophic flood between Cain and the known heretic Origen.
>>1367062
Genesis being wrong from first sentence.
>>1375003
Literally impossible.
>>1367088
If evolution turns out to be exactly as the theory details it - then God does clearly does not exist, whatever happened with Jesus as a human is just a case of a serious mental disease - and every other Christian, saint, member of any spiritual practice - is having a psychotic distortions of reality caused by a pathological process afflicting the brain.
That would be the implication - based the materialistic world view.
>>1374982
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
>>1375024
I meant biological evolution, not the big bang hypothesis or abiogenesis. I just meant life changing when it gets here, not the beginning of the universe or life itself.
>>1375029
How many views are incorporated into that? Just young-earth, or does it put everything else in there, too?
>>1375110
>More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process. However, the percentage who say God was not involved is rising.
>>1375118
Well then.
>>1367100
Only american protestants take it literally.
>>1375106
You cannot deny evolution as a process - natural phenomena even as a Christian.
Because indeed you believe that God created the word - ex nihile - as a whole, so animals and humans knew no death - they were just created in a universe that seem to be old - but that's just the impression.
Just like there are physical laws, evolution is a biological "law".
It was laboratory proven, the phenomena of evolution. It has no implication over Christianity - doesn't change theology in any way.
>>1375126
Don't throw the blame on them.
First Church fathers - the saints - had a literal view of Genesis - and gave comprehensive explanations:
http://fisheaters.com/hexaemeron1.html
>>1375144
I don't deny it as a process. I just don't think that a primitive tetrapod turning into homo sapiens proves "God not real."
>>1374957
>Tell me you wouldn't dismiss a pastor at first glance when he spoke about quantum mechanics.
Depends on the pastor but probably yes since I'm a QM layman.
>Darwin finches species barriers
The finches demonstrate that variation can quickly rise and also demonstrates the principle of selection. Ring species and hybrid animals are decent demonstrations of the potential permeability of the species barrier and potential speciation events.
>Mutations bad
He said they were majorly deleterious. This is wrong as far as I know. They are mostly silent for various reasons one of which is the redundant nature of protein encoding base pairs and where the mutation might happen. A reading frame shift of 1 or 2 base pairs (3 bp just end up nulling the shift even if that's one extra protein) will absolutely destroy a protein but a SNP outside of the active area is completely meh.
>books
His book or program analogy is flawed because either of those are significantly less redundant than a genome is. A genome like ours has 2 copies so most cases where there is only one functioning protein can be buffered out. Then there are various non-coding areas which can be altered with some freedom since not 100% of the genome is relevant. Then there are changes that don't do anything due to coding redundancy, typically on the 3rd bp, and wobble.
>credentials on the internet
>He doesn't strawman
Ad hominem does fit better, you're right. But whatever, it's polemics.
I think that in the cow to whale argument he's criticizing the lack of intermediary animals in the fossil record.
Homological criteria are not a tautology. Maybe his are since there almost certainly is no criteria of function
>>1374980
>You sound like you've already got a judgment on the guy and anything else he says you'll take it with a negative connotation
The video introduction and his style does not sell him well to me. I also expected content out of a "highlights" reel so I ended up criticizing everything.
>>1375159
You said we should discuss the process not theory which explains human and all life trough the process of evolution and natural selection.
If that's the case and the primitive tratrapod primate turned into homo sapiens - then God is not part of the scheme, as the process of evolution is a blind, unguided process.
Don't get me wrong - actually here's the main point - you can integrate evolution right in any spiritual system you want, make your own belief, you're not hurting anyone - but Christianity is not compatible with that.
You have some elements of Gnosticism right, and some tiny sects in ancient times that believed - that first humans were spiritual entities, that came out of waters, and slowlt condensed into material beings.
Or you have the belief that minerals turn into vegetables and then vegetables into animals - animals into humans - humans into angelic beings - angelics into divine - that is related to evolution right? But it's not about it, it's just a paranormal belief - that universe went trough absolute stages of that.
And again sure you can have your impersonal energy that transcends space / time - but even if you have it and believe in it - based on evolution theory that energy did not get involved, and based on history of developing matter, that energy did also not get involved in creation of material world - actually it's just an impersonal energy that does not care about us - it can't even have emotions or human like characteristics.. and most of all just exists into our mind.
>>1375159
Nothing can prove "God is not real".
An explanation as to how humans came into being from nothing but tiny simple creatures without any need for "God did it" as an explanation is another reason, and a pretty good one, not to bother believing God is real though.
>>1375182
If theories of material universe are proven to be factual - then Christian / Mosaic God does not exist.
And again based on material view - the impersonal God of polytheistic, shamanic religions / practices - doesn't exist outside of man mind.
>>1375024
And it remains literally impossible that Genesis is wrong from the first sentence presumably forward.
>>1375159
Fair enough.
The whole does existence presuppose design that this tends to move towards though, is a whole different can of worms.
>>1375197
It's called a lie.
A lie can be considered wrong - especially when it's proven right?
Like God does not exist in that case, yet the book starts with God created everything.
This means it would be wrong from start.
>>1375201
Christianity is a religion of book - the scriptures state it clearly - Jesus said He fulfilled the old testament and placed much emphasis on Moses.
Moses in dialogue with God wrote down - that He created the universe and that life knew no death before sin. It would make God a liar.
If you want to be taken seriously, write more than one line of text - and show that you're interested in what you say.
>>1375201
I didn't call Him Abrahamic God because - it's generally accepted as a term which describes three major monotheistic religions not two - It would include Islam - which I did not comment on - never really studied and not interested into.
He being transcendental is an idea - like in the case of the topic of this thread - He as a character - would be just the figment of man imagination and everything man described Him to be would also be their imagination. You wouldn't be able to argue with scientists and rationalists in that case because they would label you as suffering schizophrenia, borderline psychosis, epilepsy to severe hysteria
and “culturally constituted defense.”
>>1375204
You are talking about things that are literally impossible as though they could happen.
I think you may be brain damaged.
>>1375221
*tips*
>>1375230
So what am I supposed to do then, outright reject science to follow my God, or leave Him for science?
>>1375230
Who argues for things that are literally impossible?
I admit, I do waste time arguing with people who think literally impossible things do happen, like you being a christian, but that's because I don't value my free time very highly.
>>1375291
Proper science confirms what the bible says is true.
Discard anything that purports to claim that the bible is false at any point.
Save yourself a lot of time.
>>1375306
But that means all of known biology would be thrown out. It points to a common ancestor, and the fossil record confirms this. Remember, everything in science builds upon itself..
>>1375314
Some would, some wouldn't. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
And don't ever think men know more than God.
>>1375318
Science is a process, it works with what it has. True we can never know more than Him, but we certainly know more than the last generation did.
What the fuck is going on in this thread? Is this a WBC meet?
>>1375323
God is always right.
Science is always wrong.
It's not difficult to pick the one that's trustworthy.
>>1375328
More like another Ham-on-Nye debate.
>>1375331
Still seems rather polarized, like a false dichotomy.
>>1375331
You're not claiming "God is always right". You're claiming "the bible is always literal".
That's simply not the same thing.
>>1375340
It's just the way things are.
>>1375356
Yes, when you make my claims for me, they're not right.
Funny how that works.
>>1375373
"If the boot fits, wear it."
>>1375376
I put it more accurately though.
Unless you are claiming to be personally speaking on behalf of God that is.
>>1375291
You have the Holy Spirit for confirm anything you need - outside of that what else? You just believe trough hearing - the good news - then the extra comes from Tradition, and direct experiences in Church from the Holy Spirit.
Also between you and me God is real - we were just discussing hypothetical situation as OP started the thread - what if ... this is the absolute case.
Also you pretty much get a belief in a personal, intelligent God from just observing life - the order of it - the beauty uncovered by scientific tools... it's actually pretty nice man.
>>1375435
So I rely on feeling rather than facts? Seems like the two magistrates are coming into contact with one another. I prefer to keep them separate for my own sanity, but thank you.
>>1375314
That's just a theory - biology does not depend on the theory which explains life trough evolution / natural selection.
None of biology is thrown away even with the universe created by God a a whole and even with the hypothetical scenario where - there's no God and it's all just happening by the virtue of it simply being possible in a infinite time trough a material model which is shaped every decade by new creative ideas.
You have to admit, quantum mechanics - which say at such scale universes could pop in and out of existence, then big bang - a stretch of one universe into a scale which becomes stable.. cooling down of the cosmic soup - splitting of forces, stars / matter, abiogenesis, evolution - natural selection - all it's a beautiful lie, worth studying just for the sake of doing something in your free time.
Nothing else but theories and speculations are built upon fossil records - like scientific fact should be taken out of evolution conjunction.
You need to analyze things trough scientific method right? In a truly objective way.
>>1375331
God did not discuss science in His recorded words from Scriptures - and His recorded words in scriptures.
One of the last things God left us trough Holy Spirit ( in a time period when Darwin theory was already developed ) is - " Keep your mind in hell and despair not. " - So that's what God considers important, in our times.
>>1375456
The hell are the hominin skeletons they've bren finding? Fossils aren't lies.
Also, isn't theory above hypothesis but below fact?
>>1375453
So you made this claim now "rely on feelings" - it's from the position of a rational man, completely devoid of spiritual belief, the case of a scientist right?
Life being the way we described it without God is not guaranteed - it's not a fact, so you're not absolutely right - I am not absolutely right.
But as a Christian - having Holy Spirit influencing you is not an emotion, it's not something organic - it's something divine, which makes itself obvious - beyond signs in sky, marks in coffe and such - It's where logic drops, like where's the logic when angels come down on a window - going trough matter - and making their voice heard by the whole group.
If you have a purely material vision of the universe, I'll discuss with you trough that vision for the sake of us having a productive dialogue - but right now you're stepping into spiritual / theological field where you are not prepared - and not interested to have a friendly conversation.
>>1375475
Contemprany saints - again backed up the position of early Church fathers - saying that evolution theory is not compatible with Christianity. So I cannot give you a scientific answer - because the scientific answer widely accepted in academia is to accept the theory of evolution and interpret the fossils trough that conjunction - saying that now seen like that they are proofs of evolution.
So as a Christian - that's not your problem, and even as a Christian practicing scientific methods - you could just ignore the theory and mind your own life, because the theory is not compatible with your dogmatic view.
You could always make your own "scientific" theories - just like protestants done in their creation ministries. But they are smaller group, they have less backup and budget and of course their works are going to be shitty and don't have much substance.
Do you think E = mc2 only if evolution was true? Do you think universe laws would break down if scientific theories would just be stories
>>1375475
Isn't theory above hypothesis, and laws would be facts.
But if you want to hold strong to theory which explains biological life and its apparition trough evolution/natural selection and then also hold faith in Christian dogmatic view - you're going to live in duality - always be contrarian. You're most likely going to breed heresies.
The simple way is to follow the Church position on this, which is that God created everything ex nihilo - as a whole, there was no death before sin nor for animals or Adam, and the events happened literally. Creation and Adam being a real person. Actually Adam and Eve are saints in our calendar.
You could always watch the scientific world by separating fact from conjunction - that's the proper way if you plan to use science to help others - then what's the point? After all we are bio-machines in this flesh - some chemicals are going to have same reactions, medicine is still legitimate and pretty factual as there are laws in biology like there are laws in physics.
>>1371161
Australopithecus =/= monkey
>>1375419
I am, actually.
>>1375462
Of course He did. He literally gave an account of how He made the universe. His cosmology is correct; He is the author of it, and the inspiration for what Moses wrote down, and the Jews faithfully copied letter for letter for ages.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And God said, "Light, be" and light was.
Time. Matter. Energy.
>>1375526
That's incredibly arrogant.
I'm not sure why you would claim to be God himself, because as far as I am concerned God is the only one that can speak on behalf of God.
>>1375543
He gave no scientific cosmology, It was Moses a man from another times with a limited understanding of material world - God was in dialogue with Him, and gave Him the literal events - but in no way Genesis is a work of scientific cosmogony or should be taken that way.
God never overpowered anyone - He delivers to you as much as you can bear.
>I'm not sure why you would claim to be God himself, because as far as I am concerned God is the only one that can speak on behalf of God.
The fuck?
>>1375557
How is it arrogant to use the position and authority given to me by my High Priest to speak the truth to darkness?
To me, it seems arrogant of you to judge another man's servant. That seems arrogant to me.
>>1375569
It absolutely should be taken quite literally by anyone who cares about the truth more than they care about being published in peer reviewed journals.
>>1375573
What?
>>1375576
Anyway - seems like with you thread finished its purpose, bye going to leave now.
>>1375491
I prefer to keep my facts and my beliefs separate of one another. When I discuss the universe, I do so with what one can study.
I'm a proponent of BioLogos (theistic evolution) actually. I admit, my group may be small, but as progress marches on, many will become polarized on certain points.
>>1375603
Theistic evolution is easily the worst of all positions.
No wonder you separate your faith from facts. You use neither in an attempt to straddle a fence that doesn't exist.
>>1375622
I have to agree with this.
Evolution kills Christianity.
The American Protestants, strange as it may seem, are the smart Christians, at least they took a stand. All the other churches are dying.
>>1375622
>>1375652
Lot better than that YEC crap the Baptists are peddling with their hacks, and the godless naturalistic evolution the Atheistic philosophers are trying force-feed intellectuals with theirs.
>>1375675
Then why are your numbers dwindling?
>>1375675
Yes, idiots have convinced you that the layers in sedimentary rock are the earth's crusts formed over millions of years.
And like an idiot, you believed them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintelligent_design#Examples_in_humans
If God designed humans then he's a retard
>>1375687
Because they draw a line in the sand where there isn't one. Each side becomes increasingly polarized until you have to reject society and science in order to worship your God, while the scientists take a backseat to the pseudo-intellectual philosophers who take natural processes and make ideologies out of them.
>>1375690
And idiots convinced you that a worldwide flood somehow happened and layed them out in a rather neat and uniform way, rather than a hodge-podge.
>>1375703
I meant the opposing sides, not the Theistic evolutionists.
>>1375714
No, I actually went and looked at what happened when Mt. St. Helen's blew up in the 1980's.
Since you're lazy, I'll just tell you that it created stratified sedimentary rock with a few dozen layers in about six months' time.
Because they're not the earth's crusts over millions of years.
They're mudslides from the Flood.
>>1375730
Ah yes, that little chestnut.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jID6kDglLNc
>>1375687
>>1375738
Yes, Lots of Water over little time.
Not little water over Lots of Time.
There's even a basin upstream. A huge basin. And a geologist who isn't afraid to posit that it was full of water, broke, and formed the Grand Canyon in weeks, not "millions and millions of years".
>>1375703
You don't seem to understand what I am saying.
It's the theistic evolutionists, as you call them, that are getting wiped out.
https://cruxnow.com/church/2015/05/12/pew-survey-percentage-of-us-catholics-drops-and-catholicism-is-losing-members-faster-than-any-denomination/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/12/church-of-england-attendance-falls-below-million-first-time
http://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-empty-churches-go-on-sale-1420245359
It's the non-religious and the "I'm just going to ignore all the facts nutters" who are growing, at least in the developed world.
It's the "I'm going to engage in cognitive dissonance and pretend all the facts don't undermine my spiritual beliefs" guys that are losing.
>>1375790
You know these YECs may also be a factor in this too, right? The idea that they must remain isolated from the rest of society and science in order for their fragile worldview to remain intact seems less than desirable, and hammering verses about how the Hebrews were persecuted into their heads as if this is the exact same way isn't good way of reinforcing that idea.
>>1375819
>Those are Catholics and Anglicans, not Protestants.
You must be joking.
I deliberately gave you a source that covered Protestants and Catholics in Europe as well as one that covered Anglicans and one for Catholics in America.
You're in denial.
>>1375777
Three already given, check the thread.
>>1375850
So that's it then, just reject everything and live like it's the Dark Ages?
>>1375819
Water seeks paths of least resistance, and there has been 4600 years of erosion since its formation.
>>1375857
I have no idea what you are even on about.
>>1375868
That wouldn't do jack shit.
>>1375873
Reject science and believe the Bible. If you reject one aspect of science, what's to stop someone elsw from saying anything and everything that isn't mentioned in the Bible must be thrown out?
>>1375904
>Reject science and believe the Bible.
I would never believe a book with talking animals in it.
> If you reject one aspect of science, what's to stop someone elsw from saying anything and everything that isn't mentioned in the Bible must be thrown out?
I don't even get the equivalence you are trying to make here.
>>1375936
How some people try to claim that if you say one part of the Bible is poetic/allegory, then the whole damn thing is rendered useless.
>>1375936
Never heard a parrot talk?
Never heard a mynah bird talk?
kek
You're an idiot.
>>1375965
Part of the bible is poetic. Part of the bible is allegory.
the problem is that people forgot the bible is intended to be taken literally first.
When the plain, obvious sense of Scripture makes common sense we are to seek no other sense.
>>1376022
I've never heard either of them put a sentence together intelligibly, no.
Have you?
Is this really the basis you are using for believing in a talking donkey?
>>1376030
Ok then. That seems fair.
>>1376054
So you've now heard of talking birds. And of course you know they taught sign language to a lowland gorilla, yes? She has probably as large a vocabulary as you do?
See, you didn't read the bible, and don't know that it wasn't a talking snake, but a reptilian we call the devil. A serpent. With legs. That it lost as a curse against it.
Your naturalistic and normalcy biased life will get turned on its head, and you'll wonder why you tried to avoid the supernatural your entire life, and why you tried so hard to convince yourself that you're just a monkey.
>>1376054
>using for believing in a talking donkey?
No, I'm taking the Creator's word that He can give a donkey the gift of speech for an hour or so, in order to teach a wayward prophet who's in charge.
If you got past your normalcy bias, you'd note that there are many things you can learn about how fantastic and amazing animals actually are, as the donkey was given the gift of speech; there was not a speech written for it.
Everything that donkey said was already in its head. Good and bad, servant and master, fair and unfair, just and unjust.
Or, like a fool, you can argue that only events that happen in your presence matter, and nothing you haven't seen exists.
>>1376079
>So you've now heard of talking birds. And of course you know they taught sign language to a lowland gorilla, yes? She has probably as large a vocabulary as you do?
You're seriously using this as a basis for a donkey having a chat with it's owner?
I mean, really?
>See, you didn't read the bible, and don't know that it wasn't a talking snake, but a reptilian we call the devil. A serpent. With legs. That it lost as a curse against it.
http://www.gotquestions.org/talking-snake.html
>>1376082
>No, I'm taking the Creator's word that He can give a donkey the gift of speech for an hour or so,
So we've moved quite a long way from "parrots can say some words therefore a talking donkey is sound" haven't we?
>>1376095
I don't know what "talkorigins" is and I don't have any evidence "the father of lies" even exists".
>>1376094
I was faced with an idiot who said animals could not talk.
I gave common examples of animals who could.
Then another fool said that there was a talking snake in the Garden of Eden. He had to be told it was the devil himself, an enchanter, a reptilian being.
Then another fool came along and asked about Balaam's ass. And I had to respond that the Creator of the universe did far more difficult things than allow an ass to talk.
If all of those fools are you, I must apologize for taking up so much of your one hour per day you receive outside of solitary confinement.
>>1376101
talkorigins is evidence that the father of lies exists.
Everything in it is a lie. It was set up expressly to lie about Answers in Genesis.
>>1376107
>I was faced with an idiot who said animals could not talk.
And you gave no examples of animals that could out together an actual sentence, let alone any examples of donkeys that could.
>Then another fool said that there was a talking snake in the Garden of Eden
Just to make you aware the translation from Hebrew is literally snake.
>>1376108
Noanswersingenesis was set up to disprove the shit AiG posts.
>>1376128
Is moving goalposts the way you work out in the yard?
>>1368429
>i need my metaphors to be specifically written so
metaphors don't have any sort of rules at all
>>1376131
Nice try.
Stop being a parrot squawking out words you don't understand.
I have moved no goalposts.
St
>>1376128
Genesis 3
And the serpent hath been subtile above every beast of the field which Jehovah God hath made, and he saith unto the woman, `Is it true that God hath said, Ye do not eat of every tree of the garden?'
The KJV translates Strongs H5175 in the following manner: serpent (31x).
נָחַשׁ nâchash, naw-khash'; a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate:—× certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) × enchantment, learn by experience, × indeed, diligently observe.
Does it hurt to be wrong all the time? Is that why you do it? Some sort of masochism?
>>1376141
>I would never believe a book with talking animals in it.
Ok champ.
Question for you, skippy. Don't you argue that you're an animal?
And don't you talk?
>>1376145
>Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
serpent
From nachash; a snake (from its hiss) -- serpent.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5175.htm
>>1376160
So, you posted less than I did. And the "the word means only snake in Hebrew" lie; was that you too?
Congrats?
>>1367062
>implying that catholics have any problem with it.
It is a valid view for many years inside the Church.
Hell, I think that there was a famous monk...Maybe Aquino? Who developed a theory of origin of creatures in a kind of similar way to evolution.
>>1376175
Pagans and Catholics believe the same things.
Saying both is kind of redundant. Catholic pagans and non-Catholic pagans believe the same things.
>>1376178
And Marvel is better than DC!
>>1376170
>So, you posted less than I did
I posted two citations to your zero. I even posted a citation from the source you were pretending to cite when you didn't bother actually citing it because it proved you wrong.
I don't why you expect credit for "using more words".
>>1376184
I think you need to seriously work on your reading comprehension, much less realize that you have absolutely no understanding of anything spiritual.
Learn to read first. It helps in life.
>>1376192
Fuck off matey.
A bunch of dogma that you had shoved up your ass by abusive parents isn't "anything spiritual".
>>1376198
That's odd, as I cut and paste it from Strong's Concordance.
kek
Dumb as a bag of rocks.
>>1376231
Did you now. Funny how all the links to Strongs have come from me.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h5175
>serpent, snake
>>1376224
Boring.
>>1376332
Yeah, except the first and most comprehensive citations, of course.
You know, before you posted a "link" that is not actually a "link".
So was I right? you get some sort of masochistic thrill about being constantly wrong?
Maybe you could interpret when Adam saw he was naked it meant that it's hair fell off?
>>1376333
Godless people cannot deal with boredom. I think that's why God's gonna light you on fire forever. Something to do. Not boring.
>>1376339
The Holy Spirit left Adam when Adam sinned, and Adam died. That shekinah was gone, and they were naked, and afraid.
Death to God is a separation from Him, as He is Life.
>>1376337
You are aware text in your own post isn't a 'citation', right? Even if you claim, in your own posts, to have copied and pasted it from somewhere?
I hate to be the one to break this shocking and astounding concept to you.
>>1371437
So Origen was right because he had the "insight" to see Genesis wasn't true? He was a complete wackjob and shouldn't be called "Christian".
>>1376754
And Ken is?
>>1376762
*isn't?
>>1376762
they're both retarded for different reasons
>>1376776
Meh, fair enough.
>>1368919
>The only victim is the "molded in his image" thing
Long been considered to mean the soul, or rational conscious aspect of man.
You guys have all read The Lenski Affair, right?
Long, but worth every word.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair
I suppose to be fair (?), here's an alternate take on the matter.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Lenski
>>1376957
So basically:
Man proves evolution to critic.
Conservicucks try to discredit it in some way, be it hand-waving or making a fuss over insignificant details.
>>1367062
None. Evolution has no bearing on theology.
>>1376957
>>1377027
>So basically:
>Man publishes paper on 20+ year, ongoing study of e-coli bacteria that demonstrates various genetic changes in the strains over time including evolutionary adaptations (!!)
>famous Conservative Christian and creation science advocate Andrew Schlafly (creator of Conservapedia!) tries to discredit it in some way, but fails to read the paper, doesn't understand the experiment or how data works, makes fool of himself in repeated letters to Lenski and gets BTFO on the internet. Basically.
FTFY. it's really entertaining if you have time to read the whole affair.
and in the hope of avoiding provoking anyone or getting backlash here, I realize this guy isn't on the same level as every other "creation science" supporter ITT. But this guy is a famous fighter of both evolution and "liberal bias", and he just gets his ass handed to him here. It's hilarious.
>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2008/jul/01/conservapediahasalittlehan
wraps up the story nicely
>>1377527
the guardian cites this more in-depth story on the affair throughout
http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles/
>>1377565
Of course these clowns would get involved.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/hijacking-good-science-lenskis-bacteria-support-creation/
>>1378141
>>1378141
When I saw this one I couldn't believe it wasn't satire. Poe's law, right?
>>1378922
forgot link
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli
>>1377077
It is a theology, invented by a theologian, Charles Darwin.
>>1370640
i wanna fuck that monkey
>>1378141
Is your definition of "clown" "someone who's always right?"
>>1378141
Dr. Richard Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment with E. coli is commonly used to support evolution without distinction between observable limited change and unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Many publications in scientific journals have described the mutations that have provided these bacteria with a benefit in their laboratory environment. A close look at the biochemical basis behind these mutations shows that the vast majority of fitness benefits are due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of unique genetic information. Furthermore, mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed. As the idea of evolution from a simple, common ancestor requires the accumulation of novel genetic information over a long period of time, Lenski’s experiment then actually provides evidence against this idea and instead supports a Biblical creation model of life and origins.
I don't see the "clown" part.
>>1378927
I don't understand your point.
They started out as bacteria.
They ended up as bacteria.
They adapted to their surroundings by processing different food.
How does that mean they changed into, say, you?
>>1378141
To investigate the experiment I reviewed 26 peer-reviewed, scientific articles authored by Dr. Lenski et al. published between 1991–2012 (see footnotes 1–16; 18–27). I was especially interested in papers that discussed the genetic changes in the E. coli populations as they adapted to their environment. This is far from an exhaustive review; however, these papers represent the major genetic findings from over 20 years of the experiment.
I still don't see the "clown" part. Can you show me?
>creation "scientists" hide on /his/ because /sci/ will just beat their asses silly
I only come here for philosophy and I still say humanities was a mistake.
>>1378927
Perhaps the most famous of all observations in Dr. Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment was when an E. coli population began to utilize a new energy source (citrate) that they normally could not use under aerobic conditions. It is important to note that E. coli already have the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditions as it does not produce an appropriate transporter in this type of environment (among other required factors). The genetic changes that underlie this particular adaptation are complex, but a key event involved the replication of a genomic region that regulates a citrate transporter. This amplification captured a previously existing and aerobically expressed promoter (the promoter for rnk) which could then direct transcription of the citrate transporter (citT). Repeated tandem amplifications refined this function.
Wow, for a "clown" he seems rather bright.
>>1378969
You must be new here. /sci/ knows /sci/ like /his/ knows /his/.
>>1378954
Because there's no upper limit.
>>1378938
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic at this point.
>>1378942
You don't see it because you are a layman. You rely on a creationist source who will use any form of information for their own needs. Just look at the Taung Child article they made. They left crucial information out of it for the article to work, this is no different.
Also, quite strange how the man responsible for this article barely has any information regarding him, but from what I can gather, he's a medical doctor.
>>1378994
You can't be serious. You just can't be.
>>1379001
I'll let you know when I'm being sarcastic, skippy. Also, when I'm being condescending, which means speaking down to you.
