The Exosome: RNA Degradation and Evolution

BA77, I apologize for calling you a coward. Mung

Mung @ 114 Perhaps, it was circular, as it stemmed from a probable misunderstanding that there was a view, that I thought you might have held, that all of the Jewish apocalyptic genre was purely figurative. I have no reason to ascribe to that view (if it is even a common view). Anyway, your question about the Revelation imagery did not make a clear point for me. Just because I said something sounds 'pretty apocalyptic' (i.e. pretty much akin to a final universal destruction) does not mean it is to be read just like a portion of figurative imagery from the only fully apocalyptic book in the New Testament - the Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation)... or vice versa that the imagery from the Apocalypse passage you described should be read literally like one might read an literal event from a segment of an Epistle, a typically non-cryptic letter, that describes an apocalyptic event (i.e. an apparently universally destructive event). What was your intended original point by asking me if I thought of the passage from Revelation as literal too?..or perhaps, you are getting to that with your next two questions.

Is the language of Revelation apocalyptic?

Yes. It's the only fully apocalyptic book in the NT. And another clue is that the title translates as Apocalypse. :P I have no reason (yet) to think that everything of an apocalyptic nature, in Jewish writings, necessarily requires a figurative approach to reading it to be correct.

Do you interpret it literally?

First. I'm not claiming to know a lot about Revelation. I've not done a lot of research on it. But when I read it, I don't read it as either entirely figuratively or literally. Some appears to read easier as figuratively, while some appears to read easier as literal. JGuy

bornagain77, sorry I didn't notice your response. Thank you for responding, I look forward to your feedback tomorrow! Aspire to Solomon2

Thanks Mung. If you can answer my question regarding the Central Genetic Dogma your welcome to as well :) (anyone can really) Aspire to Solomon2

BA77:

Mung, I have posted the video with the math. and You still want to play games with scriptures. So be it. I have the physical evidence and you don’t. Believe what you want, you will anyway.

You accused me of distorting Scripture and taking Scripture out of context. You accused me of having no evidence. You have a video and some math. That trumps Scripture?

i.e. I rest my case and will respond no more to you on this matter mung.

Coward. Mung

BA77, You have no evidence. Mildly ironic from someone who has claimed that I have none. Mung

A2S2:

I would be delighted if a post was made on GE

There's something known as the Penrose number, or something like that. :)

This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.

How special was the big bang? I think any creator who can handle that can handle "genetic entropy." Mung

AtS2, "Does the Central Genetic Dogma still stand?" No. but its my bed time now, perhaps in the morning I will lay a few references out for you. bornagain77

i.e. I rest my case and will respond no more to you on this matter mung. bornagain77

Mung, I have posted the video with the math. and You still want to play games with scriptures. So be it. I have the physical evidence and you don't. Believe what you want, you will anyway. bornagain77

BA77:

Mung isn’t it weird that I posted a article in 112 on the 2nd destruction of Israel, and then you accused me of denying it?

I accuse you of not being able to read. :) I did not say that you denied the historical fact of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

You appear to be claiming that the prophecies don’t refer to the destruction of Jerusalem [which took place in AD 70] at all. I’d say that puts you in a distinct minority. What is your evidence?

Please post for us the passages from the Bible that you say refer distinctly and *solely to the destruction of Jerusalem that took place in AD 70. *solely - they refer only to the 2ND destruction which took place in AD 70 and not some third or fourth or fifth destruction which would take place post-AD 70. How many times do you think Jerusalem will be destroyed, BA77? How many times will the Jews be slaughtered? How many times will the Jews go into captivity? I know many "Christians" believe that there is yet another "holocaust" to come. Are you one of them? Mung

Mung, I would be delighted if a post was made on GE :) bornagain77, I would appreciate your input regarding my question on the Central Genetic Dogma. I'm not asking about this in relation to GE, just general inquiry. Does the Central Genetic Dogma still stand? Are you suggesting that the body modifies our DNA as par the course as normal body responses? You provide superb links and I would be delighted to see links in particular on this issue, because in the context of other post I’m a little more confused on this subject. Aspire to Solomon2

BA77:

Mung, and all the while Israel is in Jewish hands once again, go figure. You can distort scripture til you are blue in the face, but that EVIDENCE is what crushes your position. PERIOD!

Who is the true Israel and who is the true Jew? Scripture, please, if you dare. Mung

LOL @ BA77 #120. I have no evidence. If I quote Scripture for evidence I am quoting it out of context, therefore I have no evidence. I can't lose! Consider the following three positions: Amillennialism Premillennialism Postmillennialism They all claim to be correct and they all claim to refute the other two. Perhaps BA77 will be so kind as to tell us which of the above three interpretations he holds to. Consider just Premillennialism There's the Pre-Tribulation Rapture The Post-Tribulation Rapture The Mid-Tribulation Rapture The Pre-Wrath Rapture etc etc They all claim to be correct and they all claim to refute the other three. Perhaps BA77 will be so kind as to tell us which of the above four interpretations he holds to. Or is he out in left field some where? Then there's Preterism. Preterism takes Jesus and the Apostle seriously. It attempts to reconcile when they said something would happen with what they said would happen. Preterism offers internal consistency that the other positions lack. It has more Scriptural support and fewer presuppositions. Attacks against preterism are rarely rational and rarely based upon Scriptural exegesis. Mung

Mung, watch this video: Restoration Of Israel and Jerusalem In Prophecy (Doing The Math) – Chuck Missler – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8598581 bornagain77

correction: on the 2nd destruction of JERUSALEM,,, bornagain77

Mung isn't it weird that I posted a article in 112 on the 2nd destruction of Israel, and then you accused me of denying it? Perhaps you check more carefully before you assume my position! bornagain77

Mung, and all the while Israel is in Jewish hands once again, go figure. You can distort scripture til you are blue in the face, but that EVIDENCE is what crushes your position. PERIOD! bornagain77

BA77:

mung, you ... simply do not have any evidence that your preferred view of reality is the way it really is.

Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, as and when Jesus said it would be. That is a historical fact. Biblical interpreters and commentators have acknowledged through the ages that Jesus and the Apostles prophesied of the coming destruction. Critics, of course, claim the prophecies were made after the fact. You appear to be claiming that the prophecies don't refer to the destruction of Jerusalem at all. I'd say that puts you in a distinct minority. What is your evidence?

I’m still waiting for you to defend your position that GE is false by the way

It's just not that high on my list of priorities. :) Maybe if someone generates an OP on it and it's relevance to intelligent design.

For one, you are severely contorting some scriptures to fit your view of reality and, what’s worse, you are completely ignoring many passages in the Old Testament which speak of a worldwide scattering and regathering of Jewish people in the end times (More than a slight monkey wrench, to put it mildly, in your distorted scheme of things).

Unfortunately you make accusations without any specifics. How am I supposed to respond? No I don't? Here's a list of 101 versus from the New Testament: 101 Preterist Time-Indicators Explain how I am distorting any of them. How do you explain them under your "it never happened" view.

Moreover, you hold that Jesus has already returned (which is simply a joke if think that view fits the world we actually live in).

I'll understand if you have never actually studied these issues like I have, but that doesn't give you license. Many Christians throughout the ages have held to a return of Jesus associated with the destruction of Jerusalem. The Proof of the Gospel

Mark 13:27 “At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

That's actually Mark 13:26. At what time? When did Jesus say the coming of the son of man would occur? You have to study! You have to look at the context.

As I said before mung, I’m surprised that you have gone so far off track, you usually stick close to what you can prove by evidence.

You mean evidence like 101 verses from the New Testament? Let's try to set this out clearly: The early Christians, including the apostles, thought and declared the end was near, or they didn't. The early Christians, including the apostles, thought and declared Jesus would return soon, or they didn't. Are there other options? They were wrong, or they weren't. My position is as follows: The early Christians, including the Apostles, thought and declared the end was near. They thought and declared that Jesus' return was imminent. They were not mistaken, they did not lie. In proclaiming the nearness of "the end" and the nearness of the return of Jesus they were merely repeating what Jesus had told them in the first place I either have evidence for my position or I don't. I have provided two links. What is your position and what is your evidence?

But this turn you have made into far left field, even quoting scripture out of context to try to defend your position, has made me scratch my head towards your tactics.

Again you make accusations without any specifics. How am I supposed to respond? No I didn’t? What Scripture did I quote out of context? Mung

Axel be warned, mung cannot support his position, save by cherry picking scriptures, blatantly distorting other scriptures, ignoring still other scriptures. And yet, when shown to be wrong he will wiggle out to another foggy area and insist he is being reasonable.,,, be warned Axel, mung is not his usual self in this area of study! bornagain77

For Biblical background read Isaiah 24. Mung

Axel, Almost. The New Jerusalem is a heavenly city, as opposed or as contrasted with the earthly city of Jerusalem. But it comes down out of heaven. It's not a physical city, like the earthly city. It's appearance is not a future event we are still waiting for. "But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." (Hebrews 12:22-24) We are not waiting for a new mountain, we are not waiting for a new city, we are not waiting for a new temple, we are not waiting for a new covenant, we are not waiting for the new adam (the first/new man in a new creation). These are all truths that most orthodox Christians acknowledge, we are just waiting for our eschatology to catch up to our faith. Mung

I believe the New Heaven and the New Earth may refer to the New or is it, Second, Easter, which many anticipate, as do I, to be fairly imminent. I don't understand much at all of the Apocalyptic scripture, but, off the top of my head, I would say that the New Jerusalem is in heaven, where every person is a first-born son and a citizen of heaven. Yes, that sounds right, doesn't it? Axel

mung, you, like Darwinists, simply do not have any evidence that your preferred view of reality is the way it really is. (I'm still waiting for you to defend your position that GE is false by the way),, For one, you are severely contorting some scriptures to fit your view of reality and, what's worse, you are completely ignoring many passages in the Old Testament which speak of a worldwide scattering and regathering of Jewish people in the end times (More than a slight monkey wrench, to put it mildly, in your distorted scheme of things). Moreover, you hold that Jesus has already returned (which is simply a joke if think that view fits the world we actually live in). The bible is unequivocal that there will be no mistake by anyone when Jesus returns. Mark 13:27 "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. As I said before mung, I'm surprised that you have gone so far off track, you usually stick close to what you can prove by evidence. I've seen you handle yourself really well defending ID. But this turn you have made into far left field, even quoting scripture out of context to try to defend your position, has made me scratch my head towards your tactics. bornagain77

Back to the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. Before or after the New Heaven and New Earth? Mung

JGuy, You're arguing in a circle. The language is apocalyptic in the sense that it's apocalyptic? Not much I can say to that except to point it out. Is the language of Revelation apocalyptic? Do you interpret it literally? "Mention of the flood narrative is extraordinarily frequent in the literature of early Judaism. It shows up ... very often in apocalyptic literature." - Beale, G.K and Carson, D.A. Eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Noah and his family were saved through the flood, as were Lot and his family saved through Sodom, the earth and the heavens and humans continued on. Mung

Are there any references in the New Testament that speak of “the end” as being far distant? BA77,

Luke 21 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

There's no mention here of a long time until the end. You're reading your own fantasies onto Scripture. Revelation, as I pointed out in #104 puts the period at 42 months. How you turn that into millenia I'll never know. Your claims about the fig tree have been adequately refuted elsewhere and it certainly doesn't place the end a long ways away. In fact it says when you see the leaves you know that summer is near. Near, not far. Get it? And you completely ignore this verse which specifies a clear time frame: "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Luke 21:32)" Within a generation. Soon, not distant. That's the unified testimony of Jesus and the Apostles. Mung

The Prophesied Second Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Yyhb0EH6KaMTeX5bYuLD2fRFgEYJC2RKsjiTcqgEbII bornagain77

Also of interest https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-exosome-rna-degradation-and-evolution/#comment-446988 bornagain77

"Are there any references in the New Testament that speak of “the end” as being far distant?" https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-exosome-rna-degradation-and-evolution/#comment-446986 bornagain77

2 Peter:

Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you.

And what did Peter write to them in his previous letter? “…salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (I Peter 1:5) “He …has appeared in these last times for the sake of you.” (I Peter 1:20) “They shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.” (I Peter 4:5) “The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.” (I Peter 4:7) "For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God.” (I Peter 4:17) “…as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is about to be revealed.” (I Peter 5:1) Is Peter now contradicting himself in 2 Peter? Is he really now saying the end is far off? No, he isn't. There is nothing in 2 Peter 3 to indicate that it will be a long time yet until the end would come. The idea is imported into the text by those who demand a literal/physical destruction of he entire universe else they won't believe the prophecies have come to pass. In fact, Peter's comment in 2 Peter 3:8 was referring not to time in the future, but to time that had already passed! (Less than 40 years.) It was addressing the perceived delay up until that point. “The Lord is not slow concerning His promise…” (v.9) Are there any references in the New Testament that speak of “the end” as being far distant? Not 2 Peter 3:8 Mung

Wow, here is another one of the serendipitous little miracles. The first thing this man mentioned in this video I just so happened to click on, (while I was looking for a unrelated Tim McGrew video), was how Matthew 6 relates to 2Peter 3: Peter's Lessons on the End of the World, Materialism, Contentment and the Uncluttered Life - video https://vimeo.com/59608578 bornagain77

Mung @ 10

JGuy:

Is this to suggest 2 Peter 3 should to be read as the selected genre from Revelations? If so, why?You’re the one who called it apocalyptic language.

You’re the one who called it apocalyptic language. :) Is this an admission on your part that you don’t interpret the highly symbolic and figurative imagery of Revelation literally?

It wasn't a claim that 2 Peter 3 read as apocalyptic à la Revelation. The term apocalyptic was related to the sense of 3 & 5 here: apocalypse "3.a prophetic revelation, especially concerning a cataclysm in which the forces of good permanently triumph over the forces of evil.[...]5.any universal or widespread destruction or disaster: the apocalypse of nuclear war." So, I'm saying that it reads more like actual end days, and not as a figurative description of what would happen to Jerusalem & temple in 70AD. JGuy

mung you state that "Dividing the word is a specialty of the cults." But you know that is not what I said. I alluded to: Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). But I agree with you, cults, like what you have done with my originally intended scripture, take scripture out of context of what it was originally intended! Why did you do that mung? Did you think I would not notice? bornagain77

JGuy:

Is this to suggest 2 Peter 3 should to be read as the selected genre from Revelations? If so, why?

You're the one who called it apocalyptic language. :) Is this an admission on your part that you don't interpret the highly symbolic and figurative imagery of Revelation literally? Mung

Rightly dividing the word is not a strong suit of yours I take it mung?

Dividing the word is a specialty of the cults. I believe in the unity of the word and allowing scripture to interpret scripture. For example: "But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." (Rev. 11:2) And what is "the great city"? "Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified." Mung

@Mung

“But if you are doing evil, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it [the authority] bears the sword; for it is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing evil.” (Rom. 13:4, NW) How true this is in this “time of the end” since 1914! The judgment of the nations is moving ahead. It is a time to fear to do evil. Rather, seek righteousness, meekness and godliness, because Jehovah’s authorized Ruler of the new world, Jesus Christ, is on the throne and ruling in the midst of his foes. He is God’s avenger and the vindicator of His universal sovereignty. The sword which the authority bears symbolizes God-given power to execute judgment and cut off those who range themselves against God. Hence the symbolic description of Christ as he rides to execute God’s vengeance at Armageddon tells us: “Out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may smite the nations with it, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron.” (Rev. 19:15, NW) So upon the nations practicing evil he will act as the avenger to express the divine wrath. At Armageddon he will not recognize the political powers of this world as the “superior authorities” with absolute control over every human soul. No, but he will destroy them. He will treat them as his footstool, beneath his feet, and he will tread them to destruction in the winepress of God’s wrath. Then there will no more be a “Caesar” to whom anything must be paid. All things will be God’s and be paid back to him.—1 Cor. 15:24-28.

Copying the unfaithful nation of Israel in Jeremiah’s day, unchristian Christendom of this twentieth century claims to be called by God’s name and to represent him. Jehovah God will hold Christendom accountable for not living up to the divine name. At the universal war of Armageddon, which draws near, Jehovah will tell his Executional Officer Jesus Christ to swing down the sword of destruction upon the hypocritical religious organization. Let not the Communist Eastern bloc of nations, neither the non-Christian nations outside, gloat because of the coming destruction of the so-called Christian Western bloc, or, more particularly, Christendom. If Jehovah considers Christendom, which pretends to bear his name and to stand for God to the world, to be punishable, do Communist Russia and its satellites, and the non-Christian nations of the world, think that they are unpunishable? Have they loved Jehovah God more than Christendom has? Have they refrained from opposing and fighting against Jehovah God and his witnesses? Have they been guiltless as to doing filthy things and sinning against Him? No; and Jehovah says that they will not go free of punishment, but his executional sword will be upon all the inhabitants of the earth. Consequently they have not gone unwarned by Jehovah’s witnesses.

JWTruthInLove

Mung @ 100

Do you likewise believe Jesus is coming back riding a literal horse with his garments soaked in literal blood and with a literal sword coming out of his mouth, etc?

Is this to suggest 2 Peter 3 should to be read as the selected genre from Revelations? Ifso, why? For what it's worth here, I believe the great flood was a literal global flood. JGuy

Rightly dividing the word is not a strong suit of yours I take it mung? bornagain77

JGuy:

v.10 – v.13 Sounds pretty apocalyptic to me. I don’t think the heavens and elements melted in 70AD.

Do you likewise believe Jesus is coming back riding a literal horse with his garments soaked in literal blood and with a literal sword coming out of his mouth, etc? Mung

Mung @ 93

Why stop at v.8? “The Lord is not slow concerning His promise…” (v.9)

Why stop half way thru v.9? "9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." ...as somewhat requested... "10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." v.10 - v.13 Sounds pretty apocalyptic to me. I don't think the heavens and elements melted in 70AD. :P JGuy JGuy

Eric:

So it seems we have two possibilities.

There's a third option. What they said would come to pass did come to pass and futurism is false. :) Mung

So mung do you, like Leithart, affirm ‘the real future return of Christ’?

No. The New Testament teaches one and only one future coming. It either happened when Jesus and the Apostles said it would or they were false prophets. Mung

Mung @85:

Jesus and all the major apostles preached the nearness of the end. They were all mistaken.

So it seems we have two possibilities. You read the scriptural statements and think that Jesus and the major apostles were mistaken. Or it could be that you do not quite understand what Jesus and the major apostles were saying, and therefore it is instead you who are mistaken. No offense, but I'm pretty sure the safer bet is to not go with you on this one. :) Eric Anderson

semi OT: C.S. Lewis - Evolution and The Christian Experience - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/7060815/ Evolution Vs. The Christian Experience - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104600/ bornagain77

So mung do you, like Leithart, affirm 'the real future return of Christ'? bornagain77

2 Peter 3: Who are "the Fathers" of v.4? Were the scoffers Jewish? What "promise of His Arrival" were they referring to in their scoffing? Was their scoffing prior to or after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? Why stop at v.8? "The Lord is not slow concerning His promise..." (v.9) "their judgment of old is not idle, and their destruction will not sleep. (ch2 v3) "they feast with you" (ch2 v13) "what sort of people is it necessary for you to be in holy behaviors and godly acts, waiting for and hastening to the arrival of the Day"

The book of Second Peter has long troubled biblical scholars and interpreters, who have disputed both its authorship and its claims about the imminent return of Christ. In this study Peter Leithart offers a preterist reading of the epistle, arguing that it describes first-century events rather than the end of history. At the same time, he maintains orthodoxy, avoiding hyper-preterism and affirming both the real future return of Christ and the epistle's authenticity. Leithart's accessible style and powerful arguments make this book a valuable addition to the discussion surrounding the Bible's apocalyptic prophecies.

The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter Mung

2 PETER 3: 1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. .... JGuy

Mung @ 84 See comment 89. JGuy

EA @82:But again I stress that Sanford is using certain models that he apparently disagrees with [evolutionary theory] in order to prove a point that he apparently agrees with [recent origin of life]. There’s just a fundamental incoherence in that, imo.

What data and/or research that he uses in his book, which also support his young life position, derive purely from evolutionary theory? e.g. Observations of mutation rates, fitness changes etc... could each be measured & used by proponents of evolution theory, but that resulting data does not depend upon an assumption of evolutionary theory to be understood or be useful. JGuy JGuy

Also of interest, it may surprise some to learn that the biblical ‘prophetic’ calender is more accurate than our modern day 'scientific' calender. The Gregorian calender uses a fairly complex system of leap days to keep accuracy with the sun, whereas, on a whole consideration, the prophetic calender uses a simpler system of leap months to keep accuracy to the sun. When these two systems are compared against each other, side by side, the prophetic calender equals the Gregorian in accuracy at first approximation, and on in-depth analysis for extremely long periods of time (even to the limits for how precisely we can measure time altogether) the prophetic calender exceeds the Gregorian calender. i.e. God's measure of time exceeds the best efforts of Man to scientifically measure time accurately.,, But, seeing that God created and continually creates space-time in the first place, (per General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics respectfully), why am I surprised about this? :)

Bible Prophecy Year of 360 Days Excerpt: Is the Biblical 'prophetic' calender more accurate than our modern calender? Surprisingly yes! Excerpt: The first series of articles will show the 360-day (Prophetic) calendar to be at least as simple and as accurate as is our modern (Gregorian) calendar. In the second part of our discussion we will demonstrate how that the 360-day calendar is perfectly exact (as far as our 'scientific' measurements will allow). http://www.360calendar.com/ Trust in God's Perfect Timing - photo http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s320x320/154716_433469916682215_100000576310394_1504581_1340154442_n.jpg

Verse and music:

2 Peter 3:4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” Hillsong (Brooke Fraser) - Soon - Music Video http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ0JMMNU

bornagain77

Mung you ask,,

Are there any references in the New Testament that speak of “the end” as being far distant?

HMM,, this for one

Luke 21 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

and this for another,,

The Signs of Israel's Rebirth: Lesson 1: The Parable of the Fig Tree Concluding Statement: Now it should also be perfectly clear what the parable of the fig tree in the Olivet Discourse means (Matt 24:32-34). As the disciples were walking into the city on Tuesday morning after Palm Sunday, they noticed that the tree which Jesus had cursed the day before had withered and dried up. Later, on Tuesday evening, when the memory of the withered fig tree was still fresh in their minds, Jesus spoke the parable in question. He said that when the church sees the fig tree leafing out again, it will know that "it is . . . at the doors." The Greek for "it is" can also be translated "he is." In prophecy, "door" is often a symbol for the passageway between heaven and earth (Rev. 4:1). What the parable means, therefore, is that when the nation of Israel revives after its coming disintegration and death in A.D. 70, the return of Christ will be imminent. http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Israel/Israel1.html

Moreover,

Is Modern Israel Fulfilling Prophecy? - Thomas Ice Excerpt: There are dozens of biblical passages that predict an end-time regathering of Israel back to her land. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-IsModernIsraelFulfill.pdf The time span from the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948 to the 6 Day War in 1967 is 19 years. The time from the loss of independence in 606 B.C. to the time of the loss of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. was also 19 years. Was the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967 also prophesied? (Short Answer,, Yes!) http://xwalk.ca/y3nf.html

Here is the math:

Restoration Of Israel and Jerusalem In Prophecy (Doing The Math) - Chuck Missler - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8598581

The preceding start date, used in the prophecy calculation by Dr. Missler, is confirmed by the archaeological record:

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT Excerpt "In late years several cuneiform tablets have been discovered pertaining to the fall of Babylon which peg both Biblical and secular historic dates. The one tablet known as the "Nabunaid Chronicle" gives the date for the fall of Babylon which specialists have ascertained as being October 12-13, 539 B.C., Julian Calendar, or October 6-7, 539 B.C., according to our present Gregorian Calendar. This tablet also says that Cyrus made his triumphant entry into Babylon 16 days after its fall to his army. Thus his accession year commenced in October, 539 B.C. However, in another cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" Cyrus’ first regnal year is mentioned and was determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this first regnal year of Cyrus that he issued his decree to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C. In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September 29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30, 537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning of the desolation of the land must have officially begun to be counted after September 21-22, 607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of the 2,520 years." http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/537vs539.htm

Moreover, the Jewish fall feasts have not yet been fulfilled. Only the Jewish spring feasts were fulfilled in Christ's first coming:

Fall Feasts and the Budding of the Fig Tree with Doug Hamp - video https://vimeo.com/50687234

Even Sir Isaac Newton, who is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientist who has ever lived, was a avid student of Bible prophecy and predicted the return of Israel to their homeland:

Israeli library uploads (Sir Isaac) Newton's theological texts - February 15, 2012 Excerpt: He's considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time.,, However, the curator of Israel's national library's humanities collection said Newton was also a devout Christian who dealt far more in theology than he did in physics,, "He (Sir Isaac Newton) took a great interest in the Jews, and we found no negative expressions toward Jews in his writing," said Levy-Rubin. "He (years before it was remotely feasible) said the Jews would ultimately return to their land." http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-israeli-library-uploads-newton-theological.html "Prophetic Perspectives, 2008-2015" - Jim Bramlett Excerpt: For years I have been intrigued with Newton's interpretation of Daniel 9:25 and the 62 weeks and 7 weeks (62 X 7 = 434 years, and 7 X 7 = 49 years), counted "from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem." In his commentary on Daniel, a copy of which I have, Newton wrote that the interpretation of those 69 weeks is usually incorrect, violating the Hebrew language. He said the two numbers should not be added together as most scholars do, but the 434 years refer to Messiah's first coming (which he demonstrated), and the 49 years refer to His second coming, after Israel is reestablished, an idea unheard of 300 years ago but happening in our generation The start date for counting has been controversial. Many thought the 49-year-count would be the date of Israel's rebirth on May 14, 1948, but, alas, that did not work out. Other dates were tried unsuccessfully. But what if the count begins on one of the two most historical dates in Jewish history, the date in the miraculous Six-Day War when Israel captured Jerusalem and the Temple Mount: June 7, 1967? Assume the 49-year count (49 Jewish years X 360 days = 17,640 days), does start on June 7, 1967. Using a date-counter Web site at timeanddate.com/date/duration.html we learn that the 17,640-day count takes us exactly to September 23, 2015. September 23, 2015 is the Day of Atonement! What are the odds against that? Many have believed that the Second Coming will be on the Day of Atonement. If he knew this, old Isaac Newton would be doing cartwheels and back flips right now. http://www.prophecyforum.com/bramlett/prophetic_perspectives.html Sir Isaac Newton's Prediction For The Return Of Christ (A.D. 2060) - Sid Roth video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041154

Etc.. etc.. etc.. Thus mung, much like your gaff on Genetic Entropy right before it, it seems that you have placed yourself in the peculiar situation of going against the physical evidence concerning fulfilled prophecy in order to hold onto your a-priori beliefs.,,, I find this to be uncharacteristic of you for usually, like I said before, you follow closely to what the evidence indicates. bornagain77

Mung you ask,,

Are there any references in the New Testament that speak of “the end” as being far distant?

HMM,, this for one

Luke 21 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

and this for another,,

The Signs of Israel's Rebirth: Lesson 1: The Parable of the Fig Tree Concluding Statement: Now it should also be perfectly clear what the parable of the fig tree in the Olivet Discourse means (Matt 24:32-34). As the disciples were walking into the city on Tuesday morning after Palm Sunday, they noticed that the tree which Jesus had cursed the day before had withered and dried up. Later, on Tuesday evening, when the memory of the withered fig tree was still fresh in their minds, Jesus spoke the parable in question. He said that when the church sees the fig tree leafing out again, it will know that "it is . . . at the doors." The Greek for "it is" can also be translated "he is." In prophecy, "door" is often a symbol for the passageway between heaven and earth (Rev. 4:1). What the parable means, therefore, is that when the nation of Israel revives after its coming disintegration and death in A.D. 70, the return of Christ will be imminent. http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Israel/Israel1.html

Moreover,

Is Modern Israel Fulfilling Prophecy? - Thomas Ice Excerpt: There are dozens of biblical passages that predict an end-time regathering of Israel back to her land. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-IsModernIsraelFulfill.pdf The time span from the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948 to the 6 Day War in 1967 is 19 years. The time from the loss of independence in 606 B.C. to the time of the loss of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. was also 19 years. Was the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967 also prophesied? (Short Answer,, Yes!) http://xwalk.ca/y3nf.html

Here is the math:

Restoration Of Israel and Jerusalem In Prophecy (Doing The Math) - Chuck Missler - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8598581

The preceding start date, used in the prophecy calculation by Dr. Missler, is confirmed by the archaeological record:

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT Excerpt "In late years several cuneiform tablets have been discovered pertaining to the fall of Babylon which peg both Biblical and secular historic dates. The one tablet known as the "Nabunaid Chronicle" gives the date for the fall of Babylon which specialists have ascertained as being October 12-13, 539 B.C., Julian Calendar, or October 6-7, 539 B.C., according to our present Gregorian Calendar. This tablet also says that Cyrus made his triumphant entry into Babylon 16 days after its fall to his army. Thus his accession year commenced in October, 539 B.C. However, in another cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" Cyrus’ first regnal year is mentioned and was determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this first regnal year of Cyrus that he issued his decree to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C. In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September 29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30, 537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning of the desolation of the land must have officially begun to be counted after September 21-22, 607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of the 2,520 years." http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/537vs539.htm

Moreover, the Jewish fall feasts have not yet been fulfilled. Only the Jewish spring feasts were fulfilled in Christ's first coming:

Fall Feasts and the Budding of the Fig Tree with Doug Hamp - video https://vimeo.com/50687234

Even Sir Isaac Newton, who is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientist who has ever lived, was a avid student of Bible prophecy and predicted the return of Israel to their homeland:

Israeli library uploads (Sir Isaac) Newton's theological texts - February 15, 2012 Excerpt: He's considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time.,, However, the curator of Israel's national library's humanities collection said Newton was also a devout Christian who dealt far more in theology than he did in physics,, "He (Sir Isaac Newton) took a great interest in the Jews, and we found no negative expressions toward Jews in his writing," said Levy-Rubin. "He (years before it was remotely feasible) said the Jews would ultimately return to their land." http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-israeli-library-uploads-newton-theological.html "Prophetic Perspectives, 2008-2015" - Jim Bramlett Excerpt: For years I have been intrigued with Newton's interpretation of Daniel 9:25 and the 62 weeks and 7 weeks (62 X 7 = 434 years, and 7 X 7 = 49 years), counted "from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem." In his commentary on Daniel, a copy of which I have, Newton wrote that the interpretation of those 69 weeks is usually incorrect, violating the Hebrew language. He said the two numbers should not be added together as most scholars do, but the 434 years refer to Messiah's first coming (which he demonstrated), and the 49 years refer to His second coming, after Israel is reestablished, an idea unheard of 300 years ago but happening in our generation The start date for counting has been controversial. Many thought the 49-year-count would be the date of Israel's rebirth on May 14, 1948, but, alas, that did not work out. Other dates were tried unsuccessfully. But what if the count begins on one of the two most historical dates in Jewish history, the date in the miraculous Six-Day War when Israel captured Jerusalem and the Temple Mount: June 7, 1967? Assume the 49-year count (49 Jewish years X 360 days = 17,640 days), does start on June 7, 1967. Using a date-counter Web site at http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html we learn that the 17,640-day count takes us exactly to September 23, 2015. September 23, 2015 is the Day of Atonement! What are the odds against that? Many have believed that the Second Coming will be on the Day of Atonement. If he knew this, old Isaac Newton would be doing cartwheels and back flips right now. http://www.prophecyforum.com/bramlett/prophetic_perspectives.html Sir Isaac Newton's Prediction For The Return Of Christ (A.D. 2060) - Sid Roth video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041154

Etc.. etc.. etc.. Thus mung, much like your gaff on Genetic Entropy right before it, it seems that you have placed yourself in the peculiar situation of going against the physical evidence concerning fulfilled prophecy in order to hold onto your a-priori beliefs.,,, I find this to be uncharacteristic of you for usually, like I said before, you follow closely to what the evidence indicates. bornagain77

Mung, seeing that you usually follow pretty close to the evidence, I'm surprised at your answer to Eric, "all 3", in regards to Genetic Entropy. While, like you, I disagree with the YEC position, ironically, you put yourself in a rather peculiar situation in which you, like Darwinists, must produce evidence that adaptations are the result of a gain in functional information instead of a loss of functional information. Can you produce that evidence?

A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00

The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion that there has never been an observed violation of genetic entropy:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:

Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

Moreover:

Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design? - Granville Sewell (2nd Law) - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/looking_for_the056711.html Physicist Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts on Sal Cordova vs. Granville Sewell on 2nd Law Thermo - July 5, 2012 Excerpt: This is where Granville derives the potency of his argument, since a living organism certainly shows unusual permutations of the atoms, and thus has stat mech entropy that via Boltzmann, must obey the 2nd law. If life violates this, then it must not be lawfully possible for evolution to happen (without an input of work or information.) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-rob-sheldon-offers-some-thoughts-on-sal-cordova-vs-granville-sewell-on-2nd-law-thermo/

bornagain77

Eric Anderson:

There are numerous scriptural references to the end being near.

Hardly a New Testament book fails to mention it. :) They must have believed it. Jesus and all the major apostles preached the nearness of the end. They were all mistaken.

Without doing a careful review, I’d say probably a lot more than the few that speak of the end being far distant.

Are there any references in the New Testament that speak of "the end" as being far distant?

Ultimately, however, I have a hard time taking all the scriptural timing analyses/speculations/guesses too seriously.

It's not as if the words of a "prophet" could be used to indict a prophet if they did not come to pass. Was Jesus mistaken?

For one thing, God apparently has a different perception of time than us mere mortals.

God has no need to prophecy to Himself.

For another thing, scriptures can often refer to multiple timeframes, particularly symbolic passages.

You mean there was a sense in which the events did come to pass soon? Is that what you mean by multiple timeframes? In what sense are specifications of a time frame symbolic rather than literal? Jesus wasn't in the tomb for the specified time frame because it was merely symbolic? For all we know he could still be in the ground?

For an additional thing, we perhaps kid ourselves if we presume we know exactly what some of the more symbolic passages really mean (though we perhaps can — and certainly ought to strive to — catch a glimpse of meaning at some humble level).

Are the statements that certain things would happen within a certain time frame or "soon" just to be considered as symbolic? Symbolic of what? On the other hand, when it comes to true symbolism, we have the analogy of faith to guide us.

I was more referring to the fact that there has been a near-constant tendency for each generation to think that the end is nigh. It seems like every generation has the sense they are living on the edge of the end times. And yet one generation quietly passes away and another quietly takes its place . . .

Indeed. Some would take this as reason to be skeptical of claims that "the end is near." Jesus and the apostles were mistaken. There's no less reason to think that anyone since has been right.

But for each of us personally, the end is indeed nigh...

Let's not equivocate over "the end." Mung

EA @82: All 3 But again I stress that Sanford is using certain models that he apparently disagrees with [evolutionary theory] in order to prove a point that he apparently agrees with [recent origin of life]. There's just a fundamental incoherence in that, imo. Mung

Mung, I should have put a smiley face after my #78. There are numerous scriptural references to the end being near. Without doing a careful review, I'd say probably a lot more than the few that speak of the end being far distant. Ultimately, however, I have a hard time taking all the scriptural timing analyses/speculations/guesses too seriously. For one thing, God apparently has a different perception of time than us mere mortals. For another thing, scriptures can often refer to multiple timeframes, particularly symbolic passages. For an additional thing, we perhaps kid ourselves if we presume we know exactly what some of the more symbolic passages really mean (though we perhaps can -- and certainly ought to strive to -- catch a glimpse of meaning at some humble level). I was more referring to the fact that there has been a near-constant tendency for each generation to think that the end is nigh. It seems like every generation has the sense they are living on the edge of the end times. And yet one generation quietly passes away and another quietly takes its place . . . But for each of us personally, the end is indeed nigh . . . Eric Anderson

Mung @80:

. . . I am personally skeptical of “Genetic Entropy,” . . .

Just curious: what aspect are you skeptical of? That entropy applies to the genome? That the genome has experienced any entropy? That the entropy will eventually lead to a catastrophic breakdown? Eric Anderson

Luke 21 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. bornagain77

Aspire to Solomon2, I am personally skeptical of "Genetic Entropy," but I'm not aware of any anti-GE camp. :) Mung

Eric:

But the time has always been near.

Really? "And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." (Rev. 22:10) "But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end." (Dan. 12:4) The view that the time is always near is likewise contradicted by Scripture. Mung

Mung:

. . . that the time was near.

Ah, yes. But the time has always been near. That is one of the most constant themes -- amusingly for thousands of years -- that the time is near, short, at hand, coming quickly, however else we want to say it. No doubt the time really is near -- for each one of us individually, that is. It could be tomorrow or in 50 years or 100 years, but not much longer than that. So for all of us, our time is relatively near. Eric Anderson

Bornagain77 , Mung, and everyone else, thanks again for your responses. Bronagain77, ok you win, I won't debate the status of GE any further. :) That said I do have some questions. And again this isn't just to Bornagain77, but anyone who wishes to educate me further on all matters related to ID. 1. I'm not asking this to argue, but simply out of curiosity. I am curious as to wether or not there is ANY opposition or skepticism to GE, WITHIN the intelligent design community. Sort of like how there is debate between YEC and OEC, I'm wondering if there is also pro GE and anti GE camps. Again, I'm not asking this to dispute the status of GE, but simply out of understanding and looking at all the viewpoints on the issue. If there is no debate or skepticism at all within the ID community on this issue, that's fine, I'm just wondering for the sake of my own enlightenment on the subject, and if it is the case that everyone has sort of met a consensus on the matter, you will hear little else from me regarding it. And sometimes that means me playing devil's advocate ;) In a similar way it was, after all, my understanding of the Darwinian worldview that ultimately caused me to reject it in favor of ID. 2. I’ve been reading some of Bornagain77's post on the Central Genetic Dogma. Do you believe the Central Genetic Dogma has been overthrown, and how so? Are you suggesting that the body modifies our DNA as par the course as normal body responses? You provide superb links and I would be delighted to see links in particular on this issue, because in the context of other post I'm a little more confused on this subject. 3. I brought up some other questions unrelated to GE specifically on my other posts on this page, and everyone is welcome to respond to that stuff if they feel like it. I'm all ears, but sometimes knowledge leaks out the other side :) Thanks again everyone for their patience and critical thinking. That's what makes this forum great. Aspire to Solomon2

Eric Anderson:

The part about the city “coming down from God out of heaven” could certainly be symbolic/figurative. And you are right that there is all manner of symbolism and allusion in Revelation. However, that doesn’t mean there will be no actual city established.

I might have a tendency to agree were it not for the fact that scripture clearly teaches that the city has already been established. Then add the also indisputable fact that the author of Revelation insists on numerous occasions that the prophecy was soon/shortly to come to pass and that the time was near. Either John, and the one from whom he received the message, was wrong, or we really ought to rethink our interpretation of the book. How is this city, the New Jerusalem, described in the book of Revelation and elsewhere in the New Testament? Does it have within it a tree that people literally eat the leaves of for healing? "On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Why, in the new heaven and new earth do the nations still require healing? Apparently on a monthly basis? How is it that the city is also a bride, if we are speaking literally? And immediately following this passage we see: And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. (Rev. 22:6) "Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book." (Rev. 22:7) And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. (Rev. 22:10) Mung

Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." ROYAL TAILOR – HOLD ME TOGETHER – music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw bornagain77

Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes: Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible." http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html there is actually ample evidence in the fossil record to infer that the principle of Genetic Entropy has been rigidly obeyed over the course of the history of life on this earth. The following article is important in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the fossil record by Trilobites, over the 270 million year history of their life on earth (Note: Trilobites are one of the most prolific 'kinds' found in the fossil record with an extensive worldwide distribution. They appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the 'simple' creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they are found in the fossil record). The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html bornagain77

AtS2, Since, in science, empirical evidence has final say as to whether something is plausible or not, perhaps you can present some evidence as to why you think GE does not hold? So as to match what you desire to be true. i.e.

There is a difference between a cell dying, and an entire species facing unavoidable extinction!

You see AtS2, it is easy to make unsubstantiated claims like the one (of many) you just made in your post, and it is easy to believe them to be true (and difficult to convince someone who desires them to be true that reality is otherwise), but I see no reason to be persuaded that what you desire to be true for reality must necessarily be true. In fact, I have strong empirical reason to believe otherwise,,, to believe that what holds at the most basic level of the cell SHOULD eventually hold for the entire species, and you have presented NOTHING, other than your personal desire for how you would prefer reality to operate, that it should be otherwise! Notes: Here's a interesting talk by Dr. John Sanford. He relates how slightly detrimental mutations, that accumulate each time a cell divides, are the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die. Genetic Entropy and The Mystery Of the Genome - Dr. John Sanford - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk Notes from John Sanford's preceding video: *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. Human evolution or extinction - discussion on acceptable mutation rate per generation (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM This following video brings the point personally home to us about the effects of genetic entropy: Ageing Process - 80 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdxYmGro_Y Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/35088933 It is also extremely interesting to note, the principle of Genetic Entropy, a principle which stands in direct opposition of the primary claim of neo-Darwinian evolution, lends itself quite well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation: Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory - 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf as to fossil record: Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes ABSTRACT: Dollo's law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or "lost" developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints; http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html No Positive Selection, No Darwin: A New Non-Darwinian Mechanism for the Origin of Adaptive Phenotypes - November 2011 Excerpt: Hughes now proposes a model he refers to as the plasticity-relaxation-mutation (PRM) model. PRM suggests that adaptive phenotypes arise as follows: (1) there exists a phenotypically plastic trait (i.e., one that changes with the environment, such as sweating in the summer heat); (2) the environment becomes constant, such that the trait assumes only one of its states for a lengthened period of time; and (3) during that time, deleterious mutations accumulate in the unused state of the trait, such that its genetic basis is subsequently lost. ,,, But if most adaptations result from the loss of genetic specifications, how did the traits initially arise? One letter (Chevin & Beckerman 2011) of response to Hughes noted that the PRM "does not explain why the ancestral state should be phenotypically plastic, or why this plasticity should be adaptive in the first place." A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory – Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: Contradictory patterns in biology include the abrupt appearance of so many forms and the diversity explosions followed by a winnowing of diversity in the fossil record. It looks more like the inverse of an evolutionary tree with bursts of new species which then die off over time. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-are-losing-ground-badly.html bornagain77

AtS2, Since, in science, empirical evidence has final say as to whether something is plausible or not, perhaps you can present some evidence as to why you think GE does not hold? So as to match what you desire to be true. i.e.

There is a difference between a cell dying, and an entire species facing unavoidable extinction!

You see AtS2, it is easy to make unsubstantiated claims like the one (of many) you just made in your post, and it is easy to believe them to be true (and difficult to convince someone who desires them to be true that reality is otherwise), but I see no reason to be persuaded that what you desire to be true for reality must necessarily be true. In fact, I have strong empirical reason to believe otherwise,,, to believe that what holds at the most basic level of the cell SHOULD eventually hold for the entire species, and you have presented NOTHING, other than your personal desire for how you would prefer reality to operate, that it should be otherwise! Notes: Here's a interesting talk by Dr. John Sanford. He relates how slightly detrimental mutations, that accumulate each time a cell divides, are the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die. Genetic Entropy and The Mystery Of the Genome - Dr. John Sanford - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk Notes from John Sanford's preceding video: *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. Human evolution or extinction - discussion on acceptable mutation rate per generation (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM This following video brings the point personally home to us about the effects of genetic entropy: Ageing Process - 80 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdxYmGro_Y Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/35088933 It is also extremely interesting to note, the principle of Genetic Entropy, a principle which stands in direct opposition of the primary claim of neo-Darwinian evolution, lends itself quite well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation: Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory - 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf as to fossil record: Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes ABSTRACT: Dollo's law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or "lost" developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints; http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html No Positive Selection, No Darwin: A New Non-Darwinian Mechanism for the Origin of Adaptive Phenotypes - November 2011 Excerpt: Hughes now proposes a model he refers to as the plasticity-relaxation-mutation (PRM) model. PRM suggests that adaptive phenotypes arise as follows: (1) there exists a phenotypically plastic trait (i.e., one that changes with the environment, such as sweating in the summer heat); (2) the environment becomes constant, such that the trait assumes only one of its states for a lengthened period of time; and (3) during that time, deleterious mutations accumulate in the unused state of the trait, such that its genetic basis is subsequently lost. ,,, But if most adaptations result from the loss of genetic specifications, how did the traits initially arise? One letter (Chevin & Beckerman 2011) of response to Hughes noted that the PRM "does not explain why the ancestral state should be phenotypically plastic, or why this plasticity should be adaptive in the first place." A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory – Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: Contradictory patterns in biology include the abrupt appearance of so many forms and the diversity explosions followed by a winnowing of diversity in the fossil record. It looks more like the inverse of an evolutionary tree with bursts of new species which then die off over time. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-are-losing-ground-badly.html bornagain77

i shall become the Gould of GE :D Aspire to Solomon2

Sorry, I keep having more questions! how does DNA relate to heritability? And, besides the obvious moral qualms, what does incest do that causes such deleterious effects on offspring? Aspire to Solomon2

Also, Bornagain77, are you suggesting that death itself is simply GE? Aspire to Solomon2

The reason why I mentioned Sheldrake, Mae Wan Ho, and Bruce Lipton as possibly being against GE, is that each of them (especially Bruce Lipton and Mae Wan Ho) seem keen on promoting a “positive evolution” of sorts, that GE pretty much throws a bucket of cold ice over. Aspire to Solomon2

I was also suggesting that our spiritual wellbeing effects our physical wellbeing, and perhaps even the physical wellbeing of other living creatures as well, and that this may be causing much of what we attribute to say, GE. I'm suggesting that positive spiritual wellbeing may mitigate, or to some extent, reverse this. I'm also suggesting that the "rules" applying to physical vs spiritual things is a false dichotomy. If God made all life on earth, then isn't it safe to say that what we refer to as "physical" is just as spiritual as anything else, but perhaps, you could say, in a different wavelength or something. I sometimes think of the earth as God's shadow. Aspire to Solomon2

"I’m not sure I follow what you are saying here. Has our environment had an adverse impact on our genome because of the adverse impact we have had on our environment?" I think it is reasonable to believe so, and was wondering if this was a distinct possibility. Think of all the toxins we are exposed to, wars, violence, destruction of forestry and animal life, questionable genetic modifications in plants and animals, radiation and other forms of contamination, in addition to our frequently questionable lifestyles and diets...you get the idea. I was also suggesting that what appears to be GE is in fact a causation/correlation error of this. Aspire to Solomon2

Thanks bornagain77, Mung, tjguy and everyone else for these interesting responses. I have some more questions in light of your answers :D First, thanks bornagain77 for providing those links on NDE. The more we can establish this phenomenon as legit, and not woo woo nonsense for the Pen and Teller cranktheist crowd to make fun of, the better. Regarding GE, you have made some good points, fair enough. Did the logical philosophical link I was portraying regarding GE make sense, because you didn't really address it? Yes, I understand we live in a fallen world, but I was suggesting that GE is not necessary for that to remain so, and that GE is a fundamentally different beast than ordinary illness. There is a difference between a cell dying, and an entire species facing unavoidable extinction! If you don't feel like going into that, that's fine though. Regardless, I am curious as to wether or not there is opposition or skepticism to GE within the intelligent design community, similar, for example, in nature to that between YEC vs OEC. I doubt something with such grave (pun intended) and dramatic implications would not face resistance within the ID community (the darwinian resistance is a given of course). Another question bornagain77. I've been reading some of your other post on the Central Genetic Dogma. Do you believe it has been overthrown, and how so? Are you suggesting that the body modifies our DNA as par the course as normal body responses? Tjguy, thanks for entering the discussion! I have some questions. When you say that God plans to restore things to a pre-fall Garden of Eden state, are you sure about that? I was under the impression an entirey different world would be created, and we would be fundamentally different from Adam and Eve, or for that matter, being human (frankly I feel uncomfortable with such implications, but if the NDE reports are true, than I guess that's no so bad!). But you seem to suggest that we would in fact be giong back to the beginning and starting over, without the Satan shenanigans, so to speak (Which I think is cool). “We humans all belong to Satan’s kingdom from the day we are born because of the sin nature already present in our hearts.” This seems to suggest that humans are inherently evil?? Isn't it more reasonable to hold that people are inherently good, but can choose bad, and bad decisions can be tempting simple because Satan abuses his power over this world to twist healthy desires into unhealthy ones? This may be a cheesy analogy, but I think of him much in the same way as Agent Smith, infecting and corrupting the designed world, and us, into his twisted, cannabilistic image. “it's my world!!!” Also, I'm under the impression that Satan fell to earth before Eve was tempted to eat the apple. Meaning this whole spiritual entrappment would not have occurred if it wasn't for Satan's rebellion (read: God didn't make the tree simply to test people, or invent choice. We could always choose things, but now we could choose bad things, thanks to Satan's dominion on the earth, considering that Satan was originally meant to preside amongst the people on their behalf. In essence, he was always meant to be the Prince of this Earth, but not a corrupted one, as he is now) Eric Anderson, could you tell me what parts of the bible we are supposed to be taken literally and which ones figurately :D It seems theologians say all the convenient parts are literal, all the confusing stuff is figurative :P Aspire to Solomon2

Mung @62:

The new Jerusalem is not a literal/physical city that is going to appear in the sky over our heads. What make you think this language is supposed to be interpreted literally?

Interesting issue. The part about the city "coming down from God out of heaven" could certainly be symbolic/figurative. And you are right that there is all manner of symbolism and allusion in Revelation. However, that doesn't mean there will be no actual city established. Eric Anderson

Well, if I may interject, here, Mung, 'pain' and 'crying' are immediately and deeply personal and real. Pain has a more metaphorical potential, but in combination with crying, wiping away tears etc, why look for more than the most obvious sense. Isiah is also full of that kind of language, but while I wouldn't even begin to try and understand Revelation, doubtless having tried many years ago to make some sense of it - Isiah, I find astonishing beautiful in just those terms relating to sorrow, grief, tears, etc. But then I find mourning itself, something extraordinarily beautiful. How hauntingly beautiful are the words of Christ's Lament over Jerusalem. In any case,it is one of the most primordial axioms of the faith, that sorrow will be replaced by eternal bliss. Axel

The book of Revelation says there will be no more death, pain, crying, etc.

The Revelation is full of imagery and allusion. The new Jerusalem is not a literal/physical city that is going to appear in the sky over our heads. What make you think this language is supposed to be interpreted literally? Mung

Aspire to Solomon, Here is a reply to your original post from a biblical creationist perspective which is not too welcome on this board, but you did open it up to others so here goes:

bornagain77, thank you for the clarification. I can see how Genetic Entropy can theoretically fit into a Christian worldview. While I am no theologian, it seems that at the same time that it could very well not. By that I mean that just because destruction enters the world, it does not necessarily entail that all people are inexplicably, inevitably bound to all or some of the consequences of it. Meaning that before, this perversion didn’t exist; but now it does (thanks to Satan becoming corrupted by his own majesty). What you want to do about said pervasion, however, is something that, God willing, is up to you; it is an option that did not previously exist before the fall, but now has entered the created order, with all the ability to corrupt that goes with it. It seems that Genetic Entropy suggest that evil triumphs over God’s creation,

If you read Genesis, it is clear that God created the world in a state of perfection. At the end of each day, He said that what He had made was good and at the end of the creation of man on day 6, He called it very good. The animals were given vegetation for food as were humans. It was a peaceful, beautiful, and perfect creation, just the way God envisioned it. However, the Bible teaches that God knew that humans would sin and bring a curse on themselves and on His perfect creation. He had in mind a plan before that ever happened to redeem His world both spiritually(redemption through the cross) and eventually physically, when He creates a new heaven and earth. He will restore it to it’s original state of perfection. The book of Revelation says there will be no more death, pain, crying, etc. If there was bloodshed, violence, disease, and killing in God’s original creation, that does not reflect well on Him. Plus, the world would need no restoration at all if that were the case because it would be the way it always was. But this is not what Scripture teaches. These things came into His creation as a result of Adam’s sin. From that time forward, the creation was subjected to bondage(Romans 8:20-) and the creation too is waiting, along with us humans, for the time it will be redeemed. In this sense, genetic entropy fits very well with the Bible. It is simply a part of the curse that God placed on His creation as punishment for sin.

... that his creation is so feeble that the only way we can avoid being swallowed by Big Scary Satan is by God having to sacrifice his own son. It seems to suggest that God made people weak, fickle, depraved creatures who are helpless in the face of evil, as opposed to majestic, wondrous creations who, upon recognition of Christ’s glory, can triumph over evil and move mountains, who fear nothing but God, and posses an enormous opportunity and power to be active, as opposed to passive, participants in Good winning over evil, which has no legitimate place or purpose in creation one so ever. Does my objection and counter make sense? Also seeing the absolutely enormous amount of environmental destruction that man has inflicted upon himself, is it not possible that GE is a correlation causation error?

It was God’s plan to sacrifice His own Son from before the foundation of the world, before He even created the world. This was the extent of His love for us in that He still created us even though He knew it would mean that the second member of the Trinity would become a man and die a violent death to redeem man. Satan became the ruler of this world when Adam sinned although God is still over Him, but that is what he is called in the Bible. God did not make man weak, fickle or depraved. On the contrary, they were perfect, strong, smart, and without sin, but they did have a free will with which they could choose to do right or wrong. Having sinned, they brought their problems on themselves. Now we are weak and depraved creatures, but it was not like that in the beginning. Now we do need a Savior because we are incapable of defeating Satan ourselves and cleansing our hearts of sin. We humans all belong to Satan's kingdom from the day we are born because of the sin nature already present in our hearts. But the cross made it possible for us to be rescued from the kingdom of darkness and be placed into the Kingdom of His beloved Son, the kingdom of light. In the beginning, Adam & Eve’s children had to marry each other but that was no problem because it was the natural thing to do. And they had hardly any genetic defects or mutations so there was no danger whatsoever in that happening. They were not the result of a long process of evolution which, if true, would mean that their genome was already polluted from the start due to the millions of years of evolution they had already gone through. But, when Moses came along and God made a covenant with the nation of Israel, now for the first time, this marrying of close relatives was forbidden. By this time, mutations would have built up in their genomes to a certain extent which made such marriages more dangerous – although still not near as dangerous as today.

Also seeing the absolutely enormous amount of environmental destruction that man has inflicted upon himself, is it not possible that GE is a correlation causation error?

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. Has our environment had an adverse impact on our genome because of the adverse impact we have had on our environment? Well, pollution for instance can cause problems for us and perhaps if severe enough it can also cause genetic problems, but that would be over and above the problem of genetic entropy that Sanford is talking about. I don't think it would significantly effect the human genome unless you live in such an environment.

And are you familiar with Chris Ashcraft, because I think his concept of Genetic Variability by Design may counter GE? Thanks!

I think BA did a good job answering this point. tjguy

"And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." Gen. 5:24 bornagain77

correction: 3. Basically, you are bucking the second law of Thermodynamics in your desire that we should somehow transcend the effects of entropic decay. There is nothing ‘personal’ about it, we all grow old and die no matter how spiritual we are (of course Then there was Enoch :) ), All I can really do to show you this is quote scripture and suggest a inspirational song for you:

Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch

Of note, to counter balance all the negative NDE's I listed here are some very encouraging positive one:

Mary Jo Rapini Sees the Light, plus reporter Bob Woodruff's out of body experience - video http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/mary-jo-rapini-sees-light-bob-woodruff-former-nurse-skeptic-believer-primetime-nightline-14227538

Here is the Near Death Experience TV show, with Mary Jo Rapini and Bob Woodruff, that was on ABC in August 2011:

Beyond Belief: The Other Side - video http://abc.go.com/watch/primetime-nightline-beyond-belief/SH55131205/VD55138047/the-other-side?rfr=google

bornagain77

1. I am not aware of their views to GE, but they are not Dogmatic materialists/atheists so the GE point would be somewhat unimportant to them. 2. As far as the science is concerned, sure good living slows down going through death's door, but GE (aging of cells) happens to everybody. 3. Basically, you are bucking the second law of Thermodynamics in your desire that we should somehow transcend the effects of entropic decay. There is nothing 'personal' about it,, All I can really do to show you this is quote scripture and suggest a inspirational song for you:

Of note, to counter balance all the negative NDE's I listed here are some very encouraging positive one: Mary Jo Rapini Sees the Light, plus reporter Bob Woodruff's out of body experience - video http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/mary-jo-rapini-sees-light-bob-woodruff-former-nurse-skeptic-believer-primetime-nightline-14227538 Here is the Near Death Experience TV show, with Mary Jo Rapini and Bob Woodruff, that was on ABC in August 2011: Beyond Belief: The Other Side - video http://abc.go.com/watch/primetime-nightline-beyond-belief/SH55131205/VD55138047/the-other-side?rfr=google Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch

4 bornagain77

Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in a Melanesian Society by Dorothy E. Counts: Excerpt: "When you were in your village you claimed to be an important man. But in this little place you have been eaten up by a knife, a dog, and a pig. And now fire will utterly destroy you." When the loudspeaker had finished, a fire blazed up and destroyed the remains. http://anthropology.uwaterloo.ca/WNB/NearDeath.html Several studies (Pasricha, 1986, Schorer, 1985-86) & Kellehear, 1993) Murphy 1999,2001) have indicated that the phenomenologies of NDEs is culture-bound. (Of Note: Judeo-Christian Culture NDEs are by far the most pleasant "phenomena") http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindestxt.htm Researching Muslim NDEs, on the web at the NDERF home page, I find that there are only a handful of Muslim NDE experiences out of the thousands of NDE's they have listed on their web site. There is only one really deep Muslim NDE in which there is a reference to "the Light". Not surprisingly, this NDE occurred to a teenage boy. In the handful of somewhat deep adult Muslim NDEs that I have read about, the Muslim NDES never mentioned "the Light", "Supreme Being" or a "Being of Light". If this holds steady for all adult Muslim NDEs, then this will fall into stark contrast to the majority of deep Judeo/Christian NDE testimonies of adults for the western world. This is of related interest: Muslim near death experience sees Jesus (Isa) becomes Christian Pt 1 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TC-TLFYNCQ Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F70Ray8Mdn4 Famous Muslim Leader accepts Lord Jesus Christ....Dr Daniel Shayesteh - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-85CJ1fWqT0 Here is a fairly disturbing Jewish NDE: Jewish near death experience part 1 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Ns3D6Tpfs Of note: The Buddhist concept of reality is that nothing in this physical world is real. People consist of a "bundle" of habits, memories, sensations, desires, and so forth, which together delude people into thinking that he or she consists of a stable, lasting self. This false self is what reincarnates body after body. In Buddhism, life in a corporeal body is the source of all suffering. Hence, the goal is to obtain liberation. This means abandoning the false sense of self so that the bundle of memories and impulses disintegrates, leaving nothing to reincarnate and hence nothing to experience pain. "Nirvana" is the Buddhist term for liberation. Nirvana literally means extinction - an extinction that allows a person to become one with all there is – to become "God" (Buddha). To attain Nirvana, one must face and accept the concept that physical reality is not real; true reality comes through self-extinction which results in becoming one with the Clear Light. http://www.near-death.com/archetypal.html Greyson and Bush (1996) classified 50 Western reports of distressing NDEs into three types: * The most common type included the same features as the pleasurable type such as an out-of-body experience and rapid movement through a tunnel or void toward a light but the NDEr, usually because of feeling out of control of what was happening, experienced the features as frightening. * The second, less common type included an acute awareness of nonexistence or of being completely alone forever in an absolute void. Sometimes the person received a totally convincing message that the real world including themselves never really existed. (note* according to one preliminary study, a similar type of this NDE may be very common among the Buddhist culture of China) * The third and rarest type included hellish imagery such as an ugly or foreboding landscape; demonic beings; loud, annoying noises; frightening animals; and other beings in extreme distress. Only rarely have such NDErs themselves felt personally tormented. Distressing Near-Death Experiences: The estimated incidence of distressing NDEs (dNDEs) for western cultures has ranged from 1% to 15% of all NDEs (Bonenfant, 2001). The results of prospective studies in which the researchers interviewed everyone who experienced cardiac arrest in one or more hospitals during a period of at least several months are noteworthy. In the four prospective studies conducted between 1984 and 2001, involving a total of 130 NDErs, none reported distressing experiences. This finding seems to confirm that the experience is relatively rare in western cultures. http://www.iands.org/nde_index/ndes/distressing.html bornagain77

AtS2, as to this comment:

"My only concern with NDE (Near Death Experiences) is whether or not they are religiously consistent? It would undermine the credibility of the accounts if, for example, some people have Christian NDEs, others pagan ones, others islamic ones, others jewish, bhuddist, islamic, hindu, new age, etc. Aside from that though, it seems reasonable enough, and it is a nice way to soften the blow of GE!"

Well as would be expected from a Christian perspective, All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability'). Here is A Small Glimpse At The Preponderance Of Negative Near Death Experiences Being Found In Foreign, Non-Judeo-Christian, Cultures: Near-Death Experiences in Thailand: Excerpt: The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of `going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. (Murphy 99) http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Near Death Experience Thailand Asia - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8M5J3zWG5g Near-Death Experiences in Thailand: Discussion of case histories By Todd Murphy, 1999: Excerpt: We would suggest that the near-constant comparisons with the most frequently reported types of NDEs tends to blind researchers to the features of NDEs which are absent in these NDEs. Tunnels are rare, if not absent. The panoramic Life Review appears to be absent. Instead, our collection shows people reviewing just a few karmically-significant incidents. Perhaps they symbolize behavioral tendencies, the results of which are then experienced as determinative of their rebirths. These incidents are read out to them from a book. There is no Being of Light in these Thai NDEs, although The Buddha does appear in a symbolic form, in case #6. Yama is present during this truncated Life Review, as is the Being of Light during Western life reviews, but Yama is anything but a being of light. In popular Thai depictions, he is shown as a wrathful being, and is most often remembered in Thai culture for his power to condemn one to hell. Some of the functions of Angels and guides are also filled by Yamatoots. They guide, lead tours of hell, and are even seen to grant requests made by the experient. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm A Comparative view of Tibetan and Western Near-Death Experiences by Lawrence Epstein University of Washington: Excerpt: Episode 5: The OBE systematically stresses the 'das-log's discomfiture, pain, disappointment, anger and disillusionment with others and with the moral worth of the world at large. The acquisition of a yid-lus and the ability to travel instantaneously are also found here. Episode 6: The 'das-log, usually accompanied by a supernatural guide, tours bar-do, where he witnesses painful scenes and meets others known to him. They give him messages to take back. Episode 7: The 'das-log witnesses trials in and tours hell. The crimes and punishments of others are explained to him. Tortured souls also ask him to take back messages to the living. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/neardeath.html?nw_view=1281960224&amp India Cross-cultural study by Dr. Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia Medical School and Dr. Satwant Pasricha of the Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences in Bangalore, India Excerpt: "Suddenly I saw two big pots of boiling water, although there was no fire, no firewood, and no fireplace. Then, the man pushed me with his hand and said, "You'd better hurry up and go back." When he touched me, I suddenly became aware of how hot his hand was. Then I realised why the pots were boiling. The heat was coming from his hands! When I regained consciousness, I had a severe burning sensation in my left arm." Mangal still had a mark on his left arm that he claims was a result of the burning. About a quarter of Dr Pasricha's interviewees reported such marks. http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/apr/06pas.htm Near-Death Experiences of Hindus Pasricha and Stevenson's research Except: "Two persons caught me and took me with them. I felt tired after walking some distance; they started to drag me. My feet became useless. There was a man sitting up. He looked dreadful and was all black. He was not wearing any clothes. He said in a rage [to the attendants who had brought Vasudev] "I had asked you to bring Vasudev the gardener.,,, In reply to questions about details, Vasudev said that the "black man" had a club and used foul language. Vasudev identified him as Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. http://www.near-death.com/hindu.html Near-Death Experiences Among Survivors of the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake (Chinese) Excerpt: Our subjects reported NDE phemenological items not mentioned, or rarely mentioned in NDE's reported from other countries: sensations of the world being exterminated or ceasing to exist, a sense of weightlessness, a feeling of being pulled or squeezed, ambivalence about death, a feeling of being a different person, or a different kind of person and unusual scents. The predominant phemenological features in our series were feeling estranged from the body as if it belonged to someone else, unusually vivid thoughts, loss of emotions, unusual bodily sensations, life seeming like a dream, a feeling of dying,,, These are not the same phemenological features most commonly found by researchers in other countries. Greyson (1983) reported the most common phemenological feature of American NDE's to be a feeling of peace, joy, time stopping, experiencing an unearthly realm of existence, a feeling of cosmic unity, and a out of body experience. http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Zhi-ying/Zhi-ying-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1992-11-39-48.pdf The Japanese find death a depressing experience - From an item by Peter Hadfield in the New Scientist (Nov. 30th 1991) Excerpt: A study in Japan shows that even in death the Japanese have an original way of looking at things. Instead of seeing 'tunnels of light' or having 'out of body' experiences, near-dead patients in Japanese hospitals tend to see rather less romantic images, according to researchers at Kyorin University. According to a report in the Mainichi newspaper, a group of doctors from Kyorin has spent the past year documenting the near-death experiences of 17 patients. They had all been resuscitated from comas caused by heart attacks, strokes, asthma or drug poisoning. All had shown minimal signs of life during the coma. Yoshia Hata, who led the team, said that eight of the 17 recalled 'dreams', many featuring rivers or ponds. Five of those patients had dreams which involved fear, pain and suffering. One 50-year-old asthmatic man said he had seen himself wade into a reservoir and do a handstand in the shallows. 'Then I walked out of the water and took some deep breaths. In the dream, I was repeating this over and over.' Another patient, a 73-year-old woman with cardiac arrest, saw a cloud filled with dead people. 'It was a dark, gloomy day. I was chanting sutras. I believed they could be saved if they chanted sutras, so that is what I was telling them to do.' Most of the group said they had never heard of Near-Death Experiences before. http://www.pureinsight.org/node/4 Dr. Satwant Pasricha Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences in Bangalore, India, findings of a survey of NDEs conducted in a region of southern India. A population of 17,192 persons was surveyed and 2,207 respondents were interviewed for identification of NDE cases. Twenty-six persons were reported to have died and revived; 16 (62%) of these having had NDEs. Thus the prevalence rate of NDEs is found to be less than 1 in a thousand for the general population of India. Whereas the rate in America is commonly given to be 5% (1 in twenty) for the general population. http://medind.nic.in/imvw/imvw17843.html bornagain77

Aspire to Solomon2, I think there is some evidence to support the idea that behavior can have an effect on DNA through epigenetics though I'm not aware of any studies involving the effects of sexual activity on epigenetics. Mung

Somewhat unrelated question, but was curious what yalls thoughts were on this matter. One of my freinds who wants to be a doctor suggested that sexual diseases were created directly through sexual activity with multiple partners. His explanation was that sex created a bond between two people, uniting and changing their DNA. When this bond is broken with additional DNA from additional partners, or in the case of homosexuality, with DNA from someone of the same gender, it causes a disruption that opens people up to bacterial infections. Does this sound like a theory that may have some basis?? Aspire to Solomon2

Thank you all for your thoughts, and I hope I didn't imply that I only wanted Mung and Bornagain77's thoughts on the matter, I would appreciate any contributions in this discussion! Mung, I appreciate your opinions on this subject but I must respectfully disagree with your assertions. Bornagain77 I have several questions and comments: Thank you for your contributions, and I found your NDE posts wonderful, and inspiring. My only concern with NDE is wether or not they are religiously consistent? It would undermine the credibility of the accounts if, for example, some people have Christian NDEs, others pagan ones, others islamic ones, others jewish, bhuddist, islamic, hindu, new age, etc. Aside from that though, it seems reasonable enough, and it is a nice way to soften the blow of GE! :) Nonetheless, your going to have to drag me kicking and screaming to get me to accept GE :D Below I will list some of my objections, and some general commentary. 1. The reason why I brought up Bruce Lipton, Sheldrake, and Mae Wan Ho is because they don't strike me as adamantly anti darwinian folks who would also not accept GE, and I was curious if you were aware of their views (or implications of their views) as it relates to GE. 2. As I suggested earlier, is it possible that what we are seeing is a correlation/causation error? Meaning that GE is not actually a ongoing, inevitable part of the created order so much as something that occurs in many places for many different reasons? Is it possible, for example, that our daily commitment to good (by allowing the holy spirit to intervene in our lives, asking for forgiveness, etc.) or evil (maybe even demonic interference) perhaps some direct impact on the natural order that we overlooking? And one of those impacts is GE? I am suggesting that, for example, people of faith may be able to mitigate, or to some extent, reverse this sort of destruction. 3. General philsopical/thoelogical implications and challenges: I see several problems with accepting GE on this matter. A. I have always believed that God is love, love translates into creation, creation into life, and goodness is all things that recognize and reinforce this chain. God is not arbitrary, he does not expect us to do things for the mere sake of doing them, but because they ARE Good, because they stem from Him, and as His created beings, we are, also by extension, inherently good as well (though capable of doing bad). He wants us to obey him, not because there is anything magical about obedience, but because he IS Good, and in order to aspire to goodness, obedience, like faith, logically follows and is simply necessecary. It would be foolish to do otherwise! To do otherwise is to undermine the very concept of a loving relationship, since he is, by definition, love. He is not a dictator (Which is not loving), He is a giver of goodness (because goodness flows from Him), who longs for his children (who, by extension are good) who were created in His goodness, to embrace Him and the good gifts he has given. I am having difficulty articulating my thoughts on this, but I hope this conception makes some sense. That said, GE seems to suggest there is no inherent connection between virtue and the source of said virtue, Himself. If virtuous thought and action has no inherent effect on human continuity through it's creation sustaining connection to the source of all virtue, God, than what makes said things virtuous? The ten commandments for example, make much sense if you consider that they are all commands that reinforce and sustain life. But GE suggest that these commandments do not reinforce and sustain life by suggesting that extinction is inevitable anyways. In what sense, then, are the commandments meaningful? Why not make a commandment asking people to hold basket weaving sessions every Wendsday? GE suggest that there is little difference between the two. GE undermines the self evident nature of virtue . And no, GE is not the same thing as death, disease, etc. Those things are clearly evils imposed on humanity, but separate from it. But GE suggests that destruction in innate to humanity itself. But how can destruction be innate to created beings? Do my objections make sense? Now I can imagine you saying “well our purpose here is to glorify God.” To that I could reply “Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. But how can creatures who posses not a trace of glory do such a thing?” “Through Jesus Christ.” “Then it isn't us glorifying him. It's Jesus. Of what consequence is to God that we exist in this relationship? What then, gives us value in the eyes of God? On what basis can anything we do be considered valuable in the eyes of God? On what basis is God pleased with anything about us at all? How can God love that which has no worth? How can or why would a glorified being even make such creatures?” What makes our choices here meaningful if they contain no virtue in of themselves? If we are not worthy of praise through our pursuit of virtue (which entails pursuit of a relationship with God), then how can we be held responsible for evil? The message seems to suggest that If we go to Heaven, it's because Jesus is great (as opposed to our acceptance of Jesus's greatness). But on the other hand we always told that if we go to hell, it's our fault. these premises contradict each other. They can't both be true. Either our choices have a negative or positive bearing on our future, or we have no choice at all, which in turn calls into question what difference anything we do makes, or why God would even care. In short, my logic seems this. GE destroys any basis for virtue. If virtue is baseless, then so are our choices. If our choices are baseless, they contain no value. If they contain no value, then it seems, that we contain no value, since we not only have none in ourselves, but also posses no means of achieving it. If we have no value, then it stands to reason that we aren't created beings, because only created beings can posses value. And if we aren't created beings, than their can't be a creator. Without a creator, their can't be salvation, because there is nothing to be saved from. I hope this objection makes sense. I personally believe that there is a God. But I am arguing that GE draws this into question. Would love to hear your responses! Aspire to Solomon2

1. That's about it, save for the last part (ethical dilemma there). 2. Designer babies? HMMM ethical dilemma again, and yet still no relief from GE 3. No, it is only futile for those whose eyes are fixed on this present world. In Theism every little thing we do in this life matters as to eternal consequences (lessons) as is illustrated in the life reviews of Near Death Experiences: Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ 4. Our bodies (brains) create no information, it is our minds which create information. 5. There is nothing that can be done about it even taking into account the most draconian methods of population control. And who would want to live in a society like that anyway? 6. The majority of changes to a genome are 'directed mutations' (J.Shapiro), yet the fact of the matter is that material processes are utterly incapable of generating even trivial levels of functional information to escape the relentless grip of entropic processes. But, as a Christian you should not be as worried as you seem to be,,, for the Good News is that Christ really did conquer the grave! 1 Corinthians 15:55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection music video) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX notes: Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. bornagain77

5. If GE is true, this is of grave importance. Why on earth is this not like “A Big Deal”???

Because there is nothing special about us. We are just another species among countless others, and we, like them, are all destined to extinction. We could adopt eugenics. Attempt to slow, halt, or reverse "the tide" based upon perceived imperfections. After all, man has always been such an excellent judge of perfection. Mung

In general, I've always thought of death as simply being a disease that has not yet found a cure, not something that was intrinsic to life itself; that would strike me as a logical contradiction Aspire to Solomon

6. Ok, and what is the status of the central genetic dogma? Can proteins change the dna? Does our dna change over time? And does it change as a consequence of willful, yet normal, biological functions? Does it ever change as a positive function, as opposed to a maladaptive, or accidental change? I was reading about identical twins, and I think they suggested that no two twins have identical dna, but why this was, or wether or not this change was in the womb or caused by later activity in life was unclear. Thanks again! Aspire to Solomon

Interesting. 1. Besides prayer, living right, and medical advances, is the only way to deal with GE is to reproduce as much as possible, and perhaps try to collect, preserve, and inject genetic trains of our ancestors into future populations? 2. I am disappointed that my card analogy held up. I was anticipating the possibility that the purpose of the epigenetic function was to allow us to swap cards for better suited ones in the human genomic deck, as necessary :( 3.If this is true, This seems to present a profound philosophical problem. It suggests, in effect, that none of us will accomplish anything of significance, ever, we are merely playing musical chairs on the titanic. So much then, for trying to help make the world a better place. It won't matter! 4. I don't understand why one hand, our bodies are powerful enough to give us the ability to make things like new books , new artwork, and new inventions, and yet our bodies do not posses the ability to do something as simple make a variety of dna strands? This strikes me as puzzling. 5. If GE is true, this is of grave importance. Why on earth is this not like "A Big Deal"??? We should be hearing about this stuff everywhere! We're talking about the potential extinction of the entire human race! Surely the powers that be can see how addressing this issue would be in their own best interest? Aspire to Solomon

MAE-WAN HO : Why beauty is truth and truth beauty - video https://vimeo.com/23400965 bornagain77

I don’t know Mae San Ho ...

http://www.amazon.com/dp/012350080X Mung

correction: I don’t know Mae San Ho but as to Bruce Lipton and Rupert Sheldrake, I like their take against materialism,,, bornagain77

I don't know , Mae San Ho but as to Bruce Lipton and Rupert Sheldrake, I like there take against materialism,,,

The Case Against Molecular Reductionism - Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4899469

As well I was impressed with the length to which Rupert Sheldrake verified the fact that the 'mind is not the brain'

The Mind Is Not The Brain - Scientific Evidence - Rupert Sheldrake - (Referenced Notes) - video http://vimeo.com/33479544

As well I was impressed to the length that Rupert Sheldrake went to make his tests accessible for skeptics: Here is the online test site:

Online Tests Excerpt: Rupert Sheldrake invites you to participate in his ongoing research. No previous experience is necessary, and the online tests can be done immediately. Most of these experiments are suitable for use in schools and colleges, and some make an excellent basis for student projects. http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/index.html

As to Dr. Behe, I think he still holds to common descent, but I'm also fairly certain that he is convinced that purely material processes cannot account for common descent,,, The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion that there has never been an observed non-trivial violation of genetic entropy:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

you ask:

And are you suggesting that while epigenetics helps us most effectively play the best cards in our hand, each generation has fewer/worse cards to choose from?

Yes, and that was a very smart way you put it. I have seen no evidence, even including epigentic modifications, that genetic entropy has ever been violated to the point of generating enough novel functional information sufficient to even account for JUST ONE novel protein. In fact this very point was a major point of disagreement between Dr. James Shapiro, who champions what he terms 'natural genetic engineering', and Dr. Doug Axe who has empirically demonstrating the severe constraint of natural processes to EVER generate even a single novel functional protein:

How Natural Genetic Engineering Solves Problems in Protein Evolution - James Shapiro - May 2012 Excerpt: When I pointed out the potential of domain shuffling by natural genetic engineering to Intelligent Design advocates who claimed protein evolution by natural mechanisms was impossible, they refused to recognize genomic data as irrefutable evidence and insisted on real-time experiments. I disagree with them strongly on the DNA sequence data. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/genetic-engineering_b_1541180.html

Doug Axe's work on the rarity of proteins is focused exactly on the rarity of individual protein domains/folds themselves. Doug Axe addresses James Shapiro's mistaken disagreement with Intelligent Design here:

On Protein Origins, Getting to the Root of Our Disagreement with James Shapiro - Doug Axe - January 2012 Excerpt: I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_protein_orig055471.html Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222

i.e. just as with neo-Darwinists, Shapiro relying on sequence similarity/dissimilarity data to ultimately try to make his case for ‘natural genetic engineering’ has the very same ‘unscientific’ problem that neo-Darwinism has of assuming the conclusion beforehand to try to prove the very question being asked. i.e. Can the novel functional information we see in protein domains and/or genes ever be generated in a ‘bottom up’ fashion by ANY unguided material processes,, Darwinian processes or otherwise?

Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge.html

As to the status of GE within the ID, well it is pretty uncontroversial that the vast majority of mutations are harmful, (in fact that was one of the major reasons, besides theological concerns, that Darwinists clinged so tenaciously to the concept of upwards to 90% junk DNA)!,, Where a controversy might erupt is as to the exact timing that God chooses to implement new functional information so as to overcome the effects of Genetic Entropy. I hold it to be at the level of 'parent kind':

A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html

bornagain77

The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

There is a strand of Christian thinking that has persisted through the ages, perhaps it's even the orthodox Christian belief on the matter, according to which the last enemy (death) has already been destroyed. Mung

I guess you could say that my impression of "how life works" was something like this; the loss of life and genetic variance caused by the flood was the equivalent of cutting off all the limbs off a plant; it would slow things down, maybe cause some issues, but eventually heal back and keep growing to it's former self, given sufficient time and the proper conditions for doing so. Aspire to Solomon

Was it Dr. Sanford who was suggesting that humans can only survive for about 2,000 more years? When I read that, I wasn't sure what to think, I was tempted to call bullocks on the whole notion just because of it's sheer macabre D: Also, am I the only one having issues with the captcha phrases not recognizing your answers? I know I'm not that bad at math! Aspire to Solomon

bornagain77, thank you again for your further patient elucidation on the subject. Apologize if these are rather vast questions! I never knew that about Darwin, that's fascinating, and also, quite saddening. In the interest of wishful thinking and playing devil's advocate, what are your thoughts on Bruce Lipton, Mae San Ho and Rupert Sheldrake as it pertains to this field? Does Michael Behe have any thoughts on this? And are you suggesting that while epigenetics helps us most effectively play the best cards in our hand, each generation has fewer/worse cards to choose from? My hitherto impression is that epigenetics somehow creates variability in a similar fashion as life itself is created, and that perhaps human beings defy the laws of thermodynamic just by virtue of being able to reproduce ad naseum, and death is caused merely by the imposition of an outside force (like Satan)? And I am curious about the status of GE within the ID community as a whole, is it considered controversial, or are most people on the same page about it or what? Aspire to Solomon

Well AtS, you certainly don't hesitate in asking about the whole enchilada do you? :) ,, Let's see if we can break it down into small size digestible nuggets. First you state,,,

that just because destruction enters the world, it does not necessarily entail that all people are inexplicably, inevitably bound to all or some of the consequences of it.

Well seeing that bodily death is inevitably a 100% assured fact for all mortal men, women, and all biological life on earth, I would say that the consequences of sin and man's 'feeble' efforts to counter that 100% fact of bodily death are pretty self evident. Apparently, not even if you are Mother Teresa, are you immune from having to pass thru the gates of death. So while we are given the high honor to be made in the image of God, we are also given the counterbalancing humbleness to realize that in Christ alone is the treasure of life possessed and it is in His choosing and timing that death shall be subjugated through him and to him.

"In Christ Alone" / scenes from "The Passion of the Christ" - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDPKdylIxVM

AtS, you also ask:

And are you familiar with Chris Ashcraft, because I think his concept of Genetic Variability by Design may counter GE? Thanks!

Yes, I love the guy. Yet, his work does not negate the principle of Genetic Entropy. It's been a while since I've seen his lecture video, but I believe he merely elaborates on the fact (and elucidates the molecular mechanisms) that the original parent kind had a greater ability for variation than the 'sub-species' do. As well, I do hold that the effects of Genetic Entropy are slowed down to a significant degree from what Dr. Sanford would prefer to believe from his Young Earth perspective because of some of the fairly elaborate mechanisms of DNA repair that have recently been discovered.,,, Once more as to the insatiable yearning to 'overcome death',, I've always been fascinated by the elaborate ways man has tried to deny the fact of inevitable bodily death,, The lengths man goes to are astonishing,,, In fact, it can be forcefully argued that the underlying psychological motivation in which Darwin fully developed his 'Origin of Species' was driven as a Theodicy (i.e. reconciling a perfectly good God with 'natural' evil) to cope with the death of his beloved daughter. To see the blatant use of theology in 'Origin' please see the book "Darwin's God" by Cornelius Hunter as well as,,

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html The Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot - (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-g

But perhaps the most bizarre, and extreme, example of this coping mechanism that seeks to deny our inevitable bodily death, through the elaborate imagination of man, was in the following 'solution' to the riddle imposed by the anthropic principle:

Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661 This preceding video, at the 6:49 mark, has a very interesting quote: "So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." - Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics

Now this subject, that I've just barely touched on, as to the extremes man will go to to live in denial of the dark nihilism that pure death would entail, would easily warrant its own (thick) book, but hopefully I given you a flavor as to the type of ungrounded thinking that the denialism entails and leads to. bornagain77

bornagain77, thank you for the clarification. I can see how Genetic Entropy can theoretically fit into a Christian worldview. While I am no theologian, it seems that at the same time that it could very well not. By that I mean that just because destruction enters the world, it does not necessarily entail that all people are inexplicably, inevitably bound to all or some of the consequences of it. Meaning that before, this perversion didn't exist; but now it does (thanks to Satan becoming corrupted by his own majesty). What you want to do about said pervasion, however, is something that, God willing, is up to you; it is an option that did not previously exist before the fall, but now has entered the created order, with all the ability to corrupt that goes with it. It seems that Genetic Entropy suggest that evil triumphs over God's creation, that his creation is so feeble that the only way we can avoid being swallowed by Big Scary Satan is by God having to sacrifice his own son. It seems to suggest that God made people weak, fickle, depraved creatures who are helpless in the face of evil, as opposed to majestic, wondrous creations who, upon recognition of Christ's glory, can triumph over evil and move mountains, who fear nothing but God, and posses an enormous opportunity and power to be active, as opposed to passive, participants in Good winning over evil, which has no legitimate place or purpose in creation one so ever. Does my objection and counter make sense? Also seeing the absolutely enormous amount of environmental destruction that man has inflicted upon himself, is it not possible that GE is a correlation causation error? And are you familiar with Chris Ashcraft, because I think his concept of Genetic Variability by Design may counter GE? Thanks! Aspire to Solomon

AtS, as to the sad implications of Genetic Entropy, I guess it all depends on your perspective. As Paul said,,

1 Corinthians 15:19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

and the passage continues,,

1 Corinthians 15:20-26 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

bornagain77

Neurotransmitters are also disassembled and the parts ferried back to the tramsmission site. I wonder how many blind watchmaker trial and error experiments it took to figure that one out. Were the first organisms with a nervous system perpetually stuck in the first sensation mode? Joe

Based on what I understand about current ID theory, would it be safe to say that humans descend from one man and one woman?

Based on what I understand about current state of biology, it would be safe to say that humans descend from the successful mating of one man and one woman. Unless of course she chooses otherwise. Joe

Thank you for your prompt, informative replies! Mung, you bring up some good points. I was not suggesting that Intelligent Design, automatically necessitates origin back to one man and one woman, so much as suggesting wether or not that is what evidence currently suggests within ID theory, but point taken. And true, genetic entropy does not argue against ID per-se (who knows the mind of the creator?). I guess my primary objection is to the sort I think bornagain77 is suggesting; it seems extraordinarily nihilistic, given it's implication of inevitable, unavoidable human extinction (regarding the other examples you gave, hope is not eliminated, as one could suppose that life extension could eventually develop, or we find some way of traveling to escape the sun, etc). To make matters worse, we get to see it on full display in our beloved decedents through a slow, painful process of de evolution (anybody remember those DEVO music videos? I rest my case.). It reduces the medical sciences from giving hope to humanity to the position of long term hospice care, slowing down the inevitable destruction of all human life (and all life on earth for that matter!). While I value the truth above all things regardless of where it may lead, even the barbaric implications of neo-darwinism seem more palatable than that, through their feeble hope of evolving past evolution (absurd, I know, but bless Richard Dawkins heart for trying to give us something slightly jolly to consider) Not that palatability in itself is good reason to believe something, of course. bornagain77, thank you for providing such a treasure trove of information! My goodness college must have been a breeze with that sort of quick information recall haha! I'm in the process of reading the links you gave right now. But would this depressing depiction I gave of genetic entropy be an accurate portrayal of the implications of what you are suggesting to be true? And if so, is the concept of genetic entropy that I am referring to (to the extent that what I am suggesting is accurate) at all controversial within the ID community, or has the community come to accept genetic entropy of this sort as a fundamental, obvious given? Does that make sense? Thanks again, look forward to more discussion! Aspire to Solomon

AtS: Here is a short sweet overview from Casey Luskin of the,, What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? - Casey Luskin - July 12, 2012 1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high (or any) levels of complex and specified information. 2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. 3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life." 4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient 5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. 6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. 7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. 8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. 9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA. 10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html bornagain77

Aspire to Solomon, sorry for the information overload,,, there is just so much to say on the topics your asked about,, much which I left out,, hopefully the basic points are covered though. bornagain77

Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997 “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Keith Stewart Thomson - evolutionary biologist "The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis. podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00 Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity. A mouflon population (considered an ancient "parent" lineage of sheep), bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents.This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time. "What is amazing is that models of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we've found that it has been maintained," Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta Allozyme evidence for crane systematics and polymorphisms within populations of sandhill, sarus, Siberian and whooping cranes. "This is contrary to expectations of genetic loss due to a population bottleneck of some 15 individuals in the 1940s. The possibility should be explored that some mechanism exists for rapidly restoring genetic variability after population bottlenecks." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:279-288- Dessauer, H. C., G. F. Gee, and J. S. Rogers. 1992. These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are evidence of the 'limited and rapid variation from a parent kind' predicted by the Genetic Entropy model: African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research: "The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----(surprising implication of the study?)---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16846905 bornagain77

Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride's Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His - Casey Luskin - August 31, 2012 Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we've seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,, The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html McBride Misstates My Arguments in Science and Human Origins - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012 Excerpt: At the end of the day, I leave this exchange more confident than before that the evidence supports the abrupt appearance of our genus Homo. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/mcbride_misstat063931.html When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. Richard Lewontin - Harvard Zoologist Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr further notes; “When first cousins marry, their children have a reduction of life expectancy of nearly 10 years. Why is this? It is because inbreeding exposes the genetic mistakes within the genome (slightly detrimental recessive mutations) that have not yet had time to “come to the surface”. Inbreeding is like a sneak preview, or foreshadowing, of where we are going to be genetically as a whole as a species in the future. The reduced life expectancy of inbred children reflects the overall aging of the genome that has accumulated thus far, and reveals the hidden reservoir of genetic damage that have been accumulating in our genomes." Sanford; Genetic Entropy; page 147 Children of incest - Journal of Pediatrics Abstract: Twenty-nine children of brother-sister or father-daughter matings were studied. Twenty-one were ascertained because of the history of incest, eight because of signs or symptoms in the child. In the first group of 21 children, 12 had abnormalities, which were severe in nine (43%). In one of these the disorder was autosomal recessive. All eight of the group referred with signs or symptoms had abnormalities, three from recessive disorders. The high empiric risk for severe problems in the children of such close consanguineous matings should be borne in mind, as most of these infants are relinquished for adoption. http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476%2882%2980347-8/abstract Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a 'truly' beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy. Moreover it clearly appears to be a 'designed mutation' that has 'serendipitously' originated independently three different times: Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe Excerpt: We conducted a genotype-phenotype association study in 470 Tanzanians, Kenyans and Sudanese and identified three SNPs (G/C-14010, T/G-13915 and C/G-13907) that are associated with lactase persistence and that have derived alleles that significantly enhance transcription from the LCT promoter in vitro. These SNPs originated on different haplotype backgrounds from the European C/T-13910 SNP and from each other. http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n1/full/ng1946.html Recently new rare 'beneficial' mutations were found in Tibetans that have allowed them to survive in extremely high altitudes, with less oxygen. Yet once again the new 'beneficial mutations' are actually found to be 'slightly detrimnetal' because they in fact result in a limit on the red cell blood count for Tibetans: Tibetans Developed Genes to Help Them Adapt to Life at High Elevations - May 2010 Excerpt: "What's unique about Tibetans is they don't develop high red blood cells counts," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143453.htm Yet high red blood cell counts are found to be good,, Extremely fit individuals may have higher values—significantly more red cells in their bodies and significantly more oxygen-carrying capacity—but still maintain normal hematocrit values. http://wiki.medpedia.com/Red_Blood_Cells#How_It_Works ,,,Thus they were actually incorrect to imply that all high red blood cell counts found in humans are detrimental,,, Thus this is clearly another example of a loss of overall functional information, and fitness, for the human genome. This following article goes into more detail and points out many other inconsistencies with the Tibetan mutations that evaporate any claim for evidence of a 'truly' beneficial mutation: Tibetans Evolved Altitude Tolerance in 3,000 Years? - July 2010 http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100703a As well, the evidence gives every indication that the 'beneficial mutations' were not random at all but were in fact 'programmed' mutations: Another Darwinian “Prediction” Bites the Dust - PaV - August 2010 Excerpt: this means the probability of all three sites changing “at once” (6.25 X 10^-9)^2 = approx. 4 X 10^-17 specific bp change/ yr. IOW (In Other Words), for that size population, and this is a very reasonable guess for size, it would take almost twice the life of the universe for them to take place “at once”. Thus, the invocation of “randomness” in this whole process is pure nonsense. We’re dealing with some kind of programmed response if, in fact, “polygenic selection” is taking place. And, that, of course, means design. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/another-darwinian-prediction-bites-the-dust/#more-14516 bornagain77

Aspire to Solomon, while I'm flattered you would ask mung and myself for wisdom, I can assure you that I'm very fallible, and suggest you lean on the one who Sir Isaac Newton unashamedly leaned on for his wisdom:

I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time

As to your questions, I can share with you what has been previously shared with me by others. Mung has already illustrated the minimalist claim the ID makes from direct observational evidence. But as to my personal take on the empirical evidence as it now sits, I think a strong case can be made that it "would it be safe to say that humans descend from one man and one woman", as well a strong case is now mounting that "human genetic variance is caused by long term environmental exposure", in that many 'beneficial' adaptations for humans are found to be far quicker than what would be expected from a Darwinian perspective. As to incest, and the inherent problems therein, that is actually a strong piece of evidence for Genetic Entropy.,, As to your question, "is genetic entropy valid?", the answer to that question from the empirical evidence is a very strong yes!, (Although the actual rate of decline from Genetic Entropy is very debatable), As to your objection about genetic entropy being valid because ,,,"Sort of like how the Jews descended from a common ancestor, but don’t seem to have any problems with having relationships with other Jews today",,, This is because, for one thing, the parent of any particular lineage has greater potential for variation than the descendents, and for another thing, the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations has not yet accumulated yet in the 'common ancestor" to have any significant effect i.e. (Incest was not against God's law until later on in the Old Testament): Notes: Here is a paper which, though technical, shows that the modern genetic evidence we now have actually supports Adam and Eve. Moreover, the evidence it presents from the latest genetic research is completely inexplicable to neo-Darwinism, i.e. neo-Darwinism, once again, completely falls apart upon rigid scrutiny; (and although I don’t agree with the extreme 6000 year Young Earth model used as a starting presumption in the paper for deriving the graphs, the model, none-the-less, can be amended quite comfortably to a longer time period. Which I, personally, think provides a much more ‘comfortable’ fit to the overall body of evidence) The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! - Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos CMI has a excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand; The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftwf0owpzQ Moreover this genetic evidence for 'Adam and Eve', elucidated by Dr. Carter, is corroborated by other lines of genetic evidence: Human Evolution? - The Compelling Genetic Evidence For Adam and Eve Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482 Dr. Fazale Rana defends the integrity of the genetic evidence for Adam and Eve, on the following site, from some pretty high level criticism: Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve by Fazale Rana - November 2010 http://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2012/01/were-they-real-the-scientific-case-for-adam-and-eve.html Moreover, "Genetic Entropy" in the Human Genome is now found to be 'recent': Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm As to the supposed close genetic similarity between Humans and apes, that supposed 'fact' is now being severely questioned: From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012 Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics. Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: "The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes. http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html Moreover, even if the genetic similarity was extremely close, Darwinists still would have had no mechanism to explain those minor differences: More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 2012 Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect. Facing Facts But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/ As to the fossil record, despite what the popular media and Darwinists like to portray, the fossil record is anything but the smooth gradual transition that it is portrayed to be: “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a), Paleoanthropologist Exposes Shoddiness of “Early Man” Research - Feb. 6, 2013 Excerpt: The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike. ,,, archaic species concepts and an inadequate fossil record continue to obscure the origins of our genus. http://crev.info/2013/02/paleoanthropologist-exposes-shoddiness/ bornagain77

AtS:

Also, is genetic entropy valid? I find this troubling. It seems to suggest that humanity is screwed and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. It seems to me that a intelligent designer would build methods of creating genetic variance over time.

"Genetic Entropy" is based on certain models. To the extent that certain models are valid genetic entropy is probably likewise valid. I doubt whether anyone really knows whether those models tell us that humanity is destined to go extinct due to deterioration of the human genome. In any event, that really doesn't tell us much about any prospective intelligent designer. If you think it's an argument against intelligent design I'd like to know why. Why not argue that any truly intelligent designer of the cosmos would not create a universe in which the second law of thermodynamics is true. Doesn't the 2LoT tell us that we are all ultimately going to die? The same argument could be made from the limited lifespan of our sun. A truly intelligent designer would make suns that never burn out. But then certain elements wouldn't be formed... etc. etc. Mung

AtS:

Based on what I understand about current ID theory, would it be safe to say that humans descend from one man and one woman?

Intelligent design theory really has nothing to do with whether all living humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male/female pair. ID is about detecting patterns that are indicative of intelligent design. Whether such patterns can be found in human/human genetic comparisons or in comparisons between human genetics and the genetics of other species is an area open for research. There are I think a number of different views within the ID community about the extent to which Darwin's theory of common descent is valid, but I am not sure that ID theory itself has the tools to resolve that question. Mung

Aspire:

In short I come seeking wisdom.

Well, in that case, you should first learn to ignore anything I write. :) Mung

If what I am suggesting is true, it seems it would completely overthrow the central genetic dogma, along with neo darwnism and it's deterministic variants, and also provide a very empowering worldview with dramatic socio-political-cultural-medical ramifications. Aspire to Solomon

Excuse me, not Believer77, but bornagain77. Also, I would appreciate it if you could summarize your answers, providing links to support them, instead of vice versa. Thank you again, and I appreciate taking the time to respond. Aspire to Solomon

Hello Everyone, In short I come seeking wisdom. That said, I am particularly interested in responses by Mung and Believer77. I have some questions: Based on what I understand about current ID theory, would it be safe to say that humans descend from one man and one woman? And if so, would that imply that human genetic variance is caused by long term environmental exposure? Hence, epigenome adaptions are responsible for genomic and phenotype variation? Also, would that perhaps mean that the problems caused by incest boil down to the simple fact that the offspring is too similar to it's progeny, thus we see the problems that develop with asexual life? Also, is genetic entropy valid? I find this troubling. It seems to suggest that humanity is screwed and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. It seems to me that a intelligent designer would build methods of creating genetic variance over time. Sort of like how the Jews descended from a common ancestor, but don't seem to have any problems with having relationships with other Jews today because sufficient intergenerational time has passed to cause genetic variation, caused by the epigenome, caused by long term environmental exposure? I am eager for responses, thank you, and thank you for the courage to speak for what you believe to be true. Aspire to Solomon

Now here's an interesting question, or at least I think it's interesting. Given the similarities between DNA and RNA, what prevents (or in the past prevented) the exosome from tearing apart DNA? Mung

Here is another piece of evidence that clearly establishes that photonic information's is of a higher level than sequential molecular information: The (Electric) Face of a Frog - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFe5CaDTlI An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications - September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-face-rendering-worth-thousand.html The face of a frog: Time-lapse video reveals never-before-seen bioelectric pattern - July 2011 Excerpt: For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.,,, "When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,",,, "We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It's a jaw dropper.",,, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-frog-time-lapse-video-reveals-never-before-seen.html bornagain77

To further solidify the claim that quantum information/entanglement is the top level of information in a cell, (followed by photonic information and then molecular information), Quantum Entanglement/Information was strongly implicated to be along the entirety of the DNA molecule here: Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - Elisabeth Rieper - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA - Elisabeth Rieper, Janet Anders and Vlatko Vedral - February 2011 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4053v2.pdf And photons are shown to reduce to quantum information through the quantum entanglement principles of quantum teleportation here: How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm And atoms are also shown to reduce to quantum information through the quantum entanglement principles of quantum teleportation here: Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts Moreover, photons are shown to able to be encoded with information from atoms here: Converting Quantum Bits: Physicists Transfer Information Between Matter and Light Excerpt: A team of physicists at the Georgia Institute of Technology has taken a significant step toward the development of quantum communications systems by successfully transferring quantum information from two different groups of atoms onto a single photon. http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/quantumtrans.htm As well, ,,,Encoded ‘classical’ information, such as what Drs. Dembski and Marks demonstrated the conservation of, and such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ (beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:,,, Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm And perhaps most importantly to point out (once again), is that quantum entanglement/information is 'non-local' and cannot be reduced to any within space-time causation as is required in neo-Darwinism: Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed. Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can’t stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.,,, The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 bornagain77

I’ll bet there’s something similar for proteins.

Yes. It's called the proteasome ;) Genomicus

Of note: The preceding article generated a fair amount of controversy,,, The following research nailed down the 'quantum angle' for how molecules could do 'chemically impossible' things:: DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows - June 2011 Excerpt: -- DNA -- can discern between quantum states known as spin. - The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team's results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm bornagain77

Of note as to molecules doing 'chemically impossible' things: Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight - 2009 Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/does-dna-have-t.html ------------- bornagain77

Right Bornagain77 (14). In those videos there is the appearance of molecules flying straight to their destinations, like sagebrush gardener mentioned. In reality the courses of the molecules in the cell must be very chaotic - let's not forget about all the collisions. Who or what makes a coordinated whole of it all?? Box

Box The fact that all these machines can race around performing their duties at such high speeds, with such precision, makes me wonder even more. I know in my place of work (Residential home for elderly) if everyone was to rush around trying to do their work the place would ultimately grind to a halt, probably due to a closure order after the deaths of most of our residents. For these machines to do what they have been specified to do, at such speeds, as has been recorded, is a miracle all of its very own. PeterJ

Like this Box?: "Synthesis of all genomic DNA involves the highly coordinated action of multiple polypeptides. These proteins assemble two new DNA chains at a remarkable pace, approaching 1000 nucleotides (nt) per second in E. coli. If the DNA duplex were 1 m in diameter, then the following statements would roughly describe E. coli replication. The fork would move at approximately 600km/hr (375 mph), and the replication machinery would be about the size of a FedEx delivery truck. Replicating the E. coli genome would be a 40 min, 400 km (250 mile) trip for two such machines, which would, on average make an error only once every 170 km (106 miles). The mechanical prowess of this complex is even more impressive given that it synthesizes two chains simultaneously as it moves. Although one strand is synthesized in the same direction as the fork is moving, the other chain (the lagging strand) is synthesized in a piecemeal fashion (as Okazaki fragments) and in the opposite direction of overall fork movement. As a result, about once a second one delivery person (i.e. polymerase active site) associated with the truck must take a detour, coming off and then rejoining its template DNA strand, to synthesize the 0.2km (0.13 mile) fragments." http://ecoserver.imbb.forth.gr/microbiology/s-e-papers/e-papers/dna_replicases.pdf bornagain77

@sagebrush gardener (10) Watching those videos, one wonders how the different pieces just happen to move to the right place. In reality, they are covering so much ground in the cell so fast that they will be in the "right place" very frequently just by chance. This is caused by the fact that molecules in the cell move unimaginably quickly due to thermal motion. For example a small molecule such as glucose is cruising around a cell at about 250 miles per hour. For some obscure reason this fact is hardly mentioned. Box

sagebrush gardener asks:

What force guides them (all the molecules) to the precise place where they need to be?

The problem is a profound one. I think James Barham at The Best Schools does a good job of putting his finger on the pulse of the problem:

Problems with the Metaphor of a Cell as "Machine" - July 2012 Excerpt: Too often, we envision the cell as a "factory" containing a fixed complement of "machinery" operating according to "instructions" (or "software" or "blueprints") contained in the genome and spitting out the "gene products" (proteins) that sustain life. Many things are wrong with this picture, but one of the problems that needs to be discussed more openly is the fact that in this "factory," many if not most of the "machines" are themselves constantly turning over -- being assembled when and where they are needed, and disassembled afterwards. The mitotic spindle...is one of the best-known examples, but there are many others. Funny sort of "factory" that, with the "machinery" itself popping in and out of existence as needed!,,, - James Barham http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/problems_with_t062691.html

The mitotic spindle can be seen, 'popping in and out of existence as needed', at the 1:14 minute mark here:

DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/33882804

But how do these molecular machines know to 'appear' exactly at the right time and place so as to be able to perform their required job? Looking at the information flow from the molecular level, due to the extreme level of complexity being dealt with at that level, gives no relief to answering that particular question:

Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html

Here is an excellent article, from ENV, that shows it is impossible, due to polyfuctionality, to even understand living organisms in a bottom up 'molecular' manner, much less to try to explain their origination in such a bottom up 'molecular' manner:

"Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.",,, Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system," Koch said. "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." He described the concept of the Complexity Brake:,,, "Allen and Greaves recently introduced the metaphor of a "complexity brake" for the observation that fields as diverse as neuroscience and cancer biology have proven resistant to facile predictions about imminent practical applications. Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge.",,, Why can't we use the same principles that describe technological systems? Koch explained that in an airplane or computer, the parts are "purposefully built in such a manner to limit the interactions among the parts to a small number." The limited interactome of human-designed systems avoids the complexity brake. "None of this is true for nervous systems.",,, to read more go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html

Here is a website for giving us a 'visual notion' of some of the staggering complexity of the Biochemical Pathways of a 'simple' cell being dealt with!

ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl

But how, out of all this unfathomable information flow in a cell, do these molecular machines 'know' when to appear where they are needed? I think a coherent resolution as to what is directing, 'orchestrating', the molecules of the cell is found by looking at the cell in a 'top down' approach. There are three levels of information found in the cell. The bottom level of information in the cell is the linear sequence of functional information found on the strings of DNA, RNA and proteins. The second level of information in the cell is the 'biophotonic' information in the cell. The highest level of information in the cell is the quantum information inherent in the quantum entanglement of the cell (Reiper). I hold that it is now possible, due to advances in science, to provide a rough outline showing that it is the Top level of quantum information in the cell that is directing the bottom level of molecular information flow in the cell to operate in such the mysterious fashion as it does. I believe the general principle of top down 'quantum control' is most simply illustrated by this following recent breakthrough(s):

Into the Quantum Internet at the Speed of Light - Feb. 4, 2013 Excerpt: Northup report how they have directly transferred the quantum information stored in an atom onto a particle of light. Such information could then be sent over optical fiber to a distant atom. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130204094602.htm

And this,,,

The mechanism and properties of bio-photon emission and absorption in protein molecules in living systems - May 2012 Excerpt: From the energy spectra, it was determined that the protein molecules could both radiate and absorb bio-photons with wavelengths of less than 3??m and 5–7??m, consistent with the energy level transitions of the excitons.,,, http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/japiau/v111/i9/p093519_s1?isAuthorized=no

moreover, the fidelity of information transfer in the cell is greatly increased by utilizing such a 'top down' approach, (and thus would go a long way towards explaining the seemingly impossible feats of information flow now being seen in the cell):

Photonics Excerpt: Unlike electrons, the driving force behind electronics, photons do not require any copper wires or other barriers to keep them from interacting with one another crossing and mingling photons have no adverse interactions whatsoever, where clashing electronics results in signal confusion and noise.,,, Photonic systems greatly expand the amount of bandwidth available; photonic transmissions are measured in trillion hertz (terahertz), compared with less than 10 billion hertz (gigahertz) used to measure electronics. http://ecommerce.hostip.info/pages/853/Photonics.html Never mind the noise: Quantum entanglement allows channel information rate to exceed Shannon zero-error capacity - January 23, 2013 Excerpt: As developed by Claude Shannon, information theory defines channel capacity as the maximum rate at which information can be sent through the channel.,,, Recently, scientists studying asymptotic behavior in entangled sender-receiver quantum systems,, have identified families of graphs for which entanglement allows the Shannon capacity to be exceeded.,,, "The entanglement-assisted communication protocol we consider," Briët adds, "dates back at least as far as the work of Charles Bennett and others in 2002.",,, ,,,the sender could send any one of ten different messages with zero probability of error. Moreover, he adds, their main result shows that this number can be larger than the average number of messages that can be sent with zero error if no entanglement was used, thereby exceeding the zero-error Shannon capacity. http://phys.org/news/2013-01-mind-noise-quantum-entanglement-channel.html

bornagain77

@Eric Anderson

Eric Anderson: The decisions about what to do with molecules — what is to be built, how much is to be built, where it needs to go after it is built, ascertaining when it is finished with its task, deciding whether it needs to be broken down, and so on — must be part of series of carefully coordinated decision trees.

Exactly!! That is the elephant in the room! Without coordination how can these molecules make any decisions? Again I quote Stephen L. Talbott:

When regulators are in turn regulated, what do we mean by “regulate” — and where within the web of regulation can we single out a master controller capable of dictating cellular fates? And if we can’t, what are reputable scientists doing when they claim to have identified such a controller, or, rather, various such controllers? If they really mean something like “influencers,” then that’s fine. But influence is not about mechanism and control; the things at issue just don’t have controlling powers. What we see, rather, is a continual mutual adaptation, interaction, and coordination that occurs from above.

An excerpt from today’s article on evolutionnews.org, titled ‘Some Perspective on the "Mechanical Prowess" of DNA Replication’:

Synthesis of all genomic DNA involves the highly coordinated action of multiple polypeptides. These proteins assemble two new DNA chains at a remarkable pace, approaching 1000 nucleotides (nt) per second in E. coli.

’Highly coordinated action’ … but who or what is doing the coordination? That is the question! Box

Eric @ 9 I have often wondered the same thing myself. In the animated videos showing the inner workings of cells, all the molecules know exactly where to go as they unerringly fly through space to their destinations. But how can these inanimate molecules know where to go? What force guides them to the precise place where they need to be? sagebrush gardener

This whole process is something that has been almost completely ignored and is something that we are barely scratching the surface of. The process I'm talking about is: the molecule recognition and decision-making process. There is such a strong tendency (discussed recently on another thread with respect to protein folding) to think that "stuff just happens" in the cell by virtue of chemistry and physics.* But if we engage in some serious reflection we begin to catch a glimpse that virtually every aspect of cellular processes has to be carefully controlled. Even those processes that do proceed by pure virtue of chemistry/physics (say, ion flow across a channel) must be moderated and controlled by recognition receptors, switches, feedback loops, and so on. The decisions about what to do with molecules -- what is to be built, how much is to be built, where it needs to go after it is built, ascertaining when it is finished with its task, deciding whether it needs to be broken down, and so on -- must be part of series of carefully coordinated decision trees. There is scarcely any process in the cell that "just happens," and recognition of this fact will help us ask more useful questions and probe more deeply to understand biology. It also helps us escape the intellectually-stunting trap of imagining that it all just came together somehow. Further, if we spend a few minutes reflecting, we quickly realize that there is a massive amount of information in an organism that is not contained in the protein-coding regions of DNA. There are thousands upon thousands of information-driven processes we have not yet discovered, but we know must be there. That information is contained somewhere in the cell, whether in non-protein-coding regions of DNA or outside DNA or both.** ----- * ID folks are not immune and are sometimes guilty of imagining that if we can just get the right sequence of nucleotides or amino acids in place then the rest will take care of itself. And for those who refuse to entertain design as a possibility, I've noticed there is somewhat less interest in even asking detailed questions about how or why something works. ** For those who think all the information for an organism is contained in its DNA (for example, Matzke, to whom I posed this question), this should also give them pause before asserting that DNA is largely junk. Eric Anderson

Cornelius Hunter omits to ask the most crucial question: how does the exosome know when to act and when not to act? As a matter of fact how does all the components of the cell know this? Where is the conductor? Who or what is in control of the delicate balance between all these complex chemical reactions? Stephan Talbott did put it like this: “The question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?” Box

But when its job is done, an RNA molecule must be broken apart. The job of destroying RNA is crucial for without it the cell’s RNA would rapidly build up and kill the cell. So cells are equipped with an intricate machine that chops up RNA molecules when they no longer are needed. This RNA degradation machine is called the exosome...

I'll bet there's something similar for proteins. Call it a UD prediction. U Don't have to be no genius. And I'll bet that the "parts" are re-used, they get recycled. And this means that the RNA has to be broken up in a particular way, not just any old way. And yes it must have poofed into existence step by tiny step by evolution because little poofs are just so much more believable than big poofs. Mung

BA @ 5 I loved the phrase "taxonomic exuberance", used in the linked article to describe the proliferation of new "species" in paleoanthropology. I noticed this phenomenon when I used to study California native plants. It seemed that every time a botanist found an Arctostaphylos in his backyard, he would declare it a new species based on barely detectable differences. The count of purported Arctostaphylos species is now up to about 117. It is a status symbol to discover a new species and everyone is eager to get in on the fun. sagebrush gardener

OT: Paleoanthropologist Exposes Shoddiness of “Early Man” Research - Feb. 6, 2013 Excerpt: The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike. ,,, archaic species concepts and an inadequate fossil record continue to obscure the origins of our genus. http://crev.info/2013/02/paleoanthropologist-exposes-shoddiness/ bornagain77

For crying out loud, how can a MOLECULE transmit information, regulate a cell's activities AND help it perform various taks?! A GROUP OF ATOMS? Where did they get their intelligence from? Do they have a wee brain? A receiver? Do they have to go through a training course under the eagle eye of Mr Random Chance? Do they have wunderkinder and drop-outs? I think we should be told. Axel

To push the edge of the envelope a bit, it is found that quantum entanglement is generated even in the "unfavorable conditions" of molecular machines: Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states – November 2011 Excerpt: We also show how conformational changes can be used by an elementary machine to generate entanglement even in unfavorable conditions. In biological systems, similar mechanisms could be exploited by more complex molecular machines or motors. http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2126 INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state. http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf This quantum entanglement being found in "unfavorable conditions" for molecular machines is a problem for the reductive materialism of neo-Darwinism because,,, Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm ,,, neo-Darwinism has no beyond space and time cause to appeal to to explain finding quantum entanglement being generated within molecular machines (or within DNA or proteins), whereas Theism does,,, "The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html verse: Acts 17:28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.',,, Music in tribute to the death and burial of Darwinism by such evidence: The Band Perry - Better Dig Two - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwURLp1MIFY bornagain77

Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ bornagain77

as to: "The problem here is that once again evolutionists have set themselves against the science. Once again they put themselves in the position of having to demonstrate what clearly goes against the facts." Evolutionists demonstrate what they claim to be is true??? Surely you jest Dr. Hunter! In spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system. "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,, ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,, Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,, ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, here are several examples that intelligence can do as such: (Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video https://vimeo.com/36880067 Whether Lab or Cell, (If it's a molecular machine) It's Design - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-01-25T15_53_41-08_00 Examples of molecular machines (molecular switches (or shuttles) and molecular motors) - Synthetic (Made By Chemists) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine#Examples_of_molecular_machines bornagain77