just me
thea
I am a pastor's daughter - deprogrammed and believe that God raised
Jesus from the Dead.
I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. etc.
thea
Brock
Great to have you here. :)
Regards,
Brock
Belly Bionic
konrad
like to ask you some questions:
You seem to have quite a clear idea about God.
Could you describe your vision?
Is he antrhopomorphic? You describe your god-being as the father
Almighty, etc, so I assume that he is,in your view humanoid to an
extent.
Is he the god of the Old Testament?
How is he related to the son he resurrected?
I have more, but let me start with these. It is long since I tried to
get a clear idea from Christians what their image of God is.
thea nob
Seeing that we are all flipping over to a new blank page here, I would
like to ask you some questions:
You seem to have quite a clear idea about God.
Could you describe your vision?
My vision is to let others know that there is a God in heaven who loved us so much that HE sent HIS son, Jesus, to die in our place. The sacrifice (look at Genesis 4 as it is the beginning, of our teaching on how to reach God) has now been paid and has been paid for 2,000 years. We can now believe in Jesus, and believe in Science at the same time if we understand that Science is only the created. To believe in the Creator, Jesus, is what God wants us to do.
thea
Is he anthopomorphic? You describe your god-being as the father
Almighty, etc, so I assume that he is,in your view humanoid to an
extent.
If I am going by the dictionary: *described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes* than yes and no. In Genesis 1, man is described as being created *in God's image, after God's likeness: and given the power over the earth like God had* God made man like 'Himself': Man is able to create another human being like 'himself' So, God has the attributes of man – NO, I think it is the other way around. Man has the attributes of a creating being. That is why our sin is not what we do, but what we believe. Romans 1:25: *who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,..*
thea
Is he the god of the Old Testament?
How is he related to the son he resurrected?
God, Jehovah, is the Father of Jesus, Who HE raised from the dead!
I have more, but let me start with these. It is long since I tried to
get a clear idea from Christians what their image of God is.
Oh no – and you pick me!! I can guarantee you that the church has changed over the last 50 years dramatically. I will be giving you the ancient ideas that most do not believe anymore. thea
Drafterman
>
> > Seeing that we are all flipping over to a new blank page here, I would
> > like to ask you some questions:
>
> > You seem to have quite a clear idea about God.
>
> > Could you describe your vision?
>
> My vision is to let others know that there is a God in heaven who loved us
> so much that HE sent HIS son, Jesus, to die in our place. The sacrifice
> (look at Genesis 4 as it is the beginning, of our teaching on how to reach
> God) has now been paid and has been paid for 2,000 years. We can now
> believe in Jesus, and believe in Science at the same time if we understand
> that Science is only the created. To believe in the Creator, Jesus, is what
> God wants us to do.
validate these claims (God exists. Heaven exists. God loves us. God
had a son. That son died for us. That son rose from the dead.)? It
would be nice if that methodology could also be used for other things.
>
> thea
>
>
>
> > Is he anthopomorphic? You describe your god-being as the father
> > Almighty, etc, so I assume that he is,in your view humanoid to an
> > extent.
>
> If I am going by the dictionary: *described or thought of as having a human
> form or human attributes* than yes and no. In Genesis 1, man is described
> as being created *in God's image, after God's likeness: and given the power
> over the earth like God had* God made man like 'Himself': Man is able to
> create another human being like 'himself' So, God has the attributes of man
> – NO, I think it is the other way around. Man has the attributes of a
> creating being. That is why our sin is not what we do, but what we believe.
> Romans 1:25: *who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
> served the creature more than the Creator,..*
>
> thea
>
>
>
> > Is he the god of the Old Testament?
>
> Yes
>
>
>
> > How is he related to the son he resurrected?
>
> God, Jehovah, is the Father of Jesus, Who HE raised from the dead!
would have had to obtain from God in order to be a viable human being?
>
>
>
> > I have more, but let me start with these. It is long since I tried to
> > get a clear idea from Christians what their image of God is.
>
> Oh no – and you pick me!! I can guarantee you that the church has changed
> over the last 50 years dramatically. I will be giving you the ancient ideas
> that most do not believe anymore. thea
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 8:34 pm, thea <tln...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > thought I would join y'all just to spice up your life a bit.
> > > I am a pastor's daughter - deprogrammed and believe that God raised
> > > Jesus from the Dead.
> > > I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. etc.
>
> - Show quoted text -
thea nob
On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, "thea nob" <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:36 AM, konrad <darnok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Seeing that we are all flipping over to a new blank page here, I would
> > like to ask you some questions:
>
> > You seem to have quite a clear idea about God.
>
> > Could you describe your vision?
>
> My vision is to let others know that there is a God in heaven who loved us
> so much that HE sent HIS son, Jesus, to die in our place. The sacrifice
> (look at Genesis 4 as it is the beginning, of our teaching on how to reach
> God) has now been paid and has been paid for 2,000 years. We can now
> believe in Jesus, and believe in Science at the same time if we understand
> that Science is only the created. To believe in the Creator, Jesus, is what
> God wants us to do. thea
Can you provide a methodology in which a person can independently
validate these claims (God exists. Heaven exists. God loves us. God
had a son. That son died for us. That son rose from the dead.)? It
would be nice if that methodology could also be used for other things.
Can you go into details about the 50% of Jesus' genetic code that he
>
>
>
>
> > Is he anthopomorphic? You describe your god-being as the father
> > Almighty, etc, so I assume that he is,in your view humanoid to an
> > extent.
>
> If I am going by the dictionary: *described or thought of as having a human
> form or human attributes* than yes and no. In Genesis 1, man is described
> as being created *in God's image, after God's likeness: and given the power
> over the earth like God had* God made man like 'Himself': Man is able to
> create another human being like 'himself' So, God has the attributes of man
> – NO, I think it is the other way around. Man has the attributes of a
> creating being. That is why our sin is not what we do, but what we believe.
> Romans 1:25: *who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
> served the creature more than the Creator,..*
>
> thea
>
>
>
> > Is he the god of the Old Testament?
>
> Yes
>
>
>
> > How is he related to the son he resurrected?
>
> God, Jehovah, is the Father of Jesus, Who HE raised from the dead!
would have had to obtain from God in order to be a viable human being?
>
>
If the BIble is True and unchanging, why is the Church changing?
>
> > I have more, but let me start with these. It is long since I tried to
> > get a clear idea from Christians what their image of God is.
>
> Oh no – and you pick me!! I can guarantee you that the church has changed
> over the last 50 years dramatically. I will be giving you the ancient ideas
> that most do not believe anymore. thea
>
>
Drafterman
A list of steps that I can take an item (such as the claim "God
exists") apply this method and end up with a result of True. Do you
have such a method?
each of our parents. This pairing is necessary in order for us to
develop and survive. Significant deviations of this result in severe
abnormalities. The existence of a single extra chromosome is the cause
for a number of such abnormalities. So we are either to assume that
Jesus only has one set of chromosomes, which begs the question of how
he could have lived, or that he has a full set, which begs the
question of where he get the second set from. God? Does God have DNA?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > I have more, but let me start with these. It is long since I tried to
> > > > get a clear idea from Christians what their image of God is.
>
> > > Oh no – and you pick me!! I can guarantee you that the church has
> > changed
> > > over the last 50 years dramatically. I will be giving you the ancient
> > ideas
> > > that most do not believe anymore. thea
>
> > If the BIble is True and unchanging, why is the Church changing?
>
> Because they don't believe the Bible is True anymore. The church started
> changing their doctrines in the early 70's (or at least that is when I
> became aware of the changes taking place). They keep adding man's thinking
> to what God says and they make the Bible into the biggest lie it can be made
> into. Psychology is mans way, the Bible is God's way, but man wants to add
> Psychology to the Bible and have Christian Psychology!! There is no such
> thing as that in the Bible, as you are either going to heaven or going to
> hell; something is right or something is wrong; everything in the Bible is
> black is black and white is white -- and now man has decided it is all going
> to be gray - and you can't find God!!
> thea
book was added it was changing, despite Biblical verses explicitly
saying that this was not allowed. Chances are the Bible you accept now
as true was actually a result of a committee decision regarding which
books to accept and reject. How do you validate their decision?
thea nob
Drafterman
> God either has DNA or you and me ain't here!!! Come on now - the Bible says
> that man is created in the IMAGE of God Almighty! To be created in the
> Image of God Almighty and not believe that HIS DNA is the same as yours
> doesn't make sense. God created you to be like him. So if you believe HE
> created you, then HE could most definitely create HIS SON, JESUS!
> thea
thea nob
Drafterman
> No, God is a Spirit -- just like we have a Spirit in us. We are made of
> 'Atoms' which are moving molecules, and for right now I am an earth being -
> but when I die, I will become a heavenly being. God the Father of our Lord
> Jesus Christ is now a heavenly being. Jesus arose from the dead. He is now
> in heaven.
> thea
genetic makeup from?
thea nob
Drafterman
> You are misunderstanding me. Jesus when he was on earth had the same
> genetic makeup of the first Adam (remember Adam and Eve) God breathed life
> into Adam and he was a living soul. So God did it a second time, only this
> time because of sin, he used the woman to complete a living soul, Jesus!
> thea
thea nob
Drafterman
> The first Adam was made from the dust of the earth and the breath of life
> from God/Holy Spirit.
possess any DNA or genetic make up (barring the living organisms
present in it). So obviously some sort of transmutation had to have
occurred. Can you provide specifics?
> There is a joke:
> A scientist went up to God and told God that he could make man.
> So God said, *go ahead.*
> The scientist reached down and picked up some mud.
> God said, *No, No, No, get your own mud.*
> I think it is aptly said, Man is made in the image of God, formed to look
> like God.
> The DNA is like the dirt at our feet.
> thea
>
>
> read more »
konrad
On Jul 11, 7:36 pm, "thea nob" <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Seeing that we are all flipping over to a new blank page here, I would
> > like to ask you some questions:
>
> > You seem to have quite a clear idea about God.
>
> > Could you describe your vision?
>
> My vision is to let others know that there is a God in heaven who loved us
> so much that HE sent HIS son, Jesus, to die in our place. The sacrifice
> (look at Genesis 4 as it is the beginning, of our teaching on how to reach
> God) has now been paid and has been paid for 2,000 years. We can now
> believe in Jesus, and believe in Science at the same time if we understand
> that Science is only the created. To believe in the Creator, Jesus, is what
> God wants us to do.
>
> thea
typical Trinity here (actually, only two components Father and Son)
Is Jesus an aspect of God, or is he a being in his own right.
Both views have immense consequences for your belief.
My view is that the Christians tried to combine the old polytheistic
beliefs by creating a Trinity - the Catholics took it further by
creating a pantheon of patron saints, but let's not go there (yet).
By allowing the concept of Trinity, it is already compromising its
montheistic ideal. And by compromising that viewpoint, it is clear
that the their God-idea is not divinely inspired, but an alagamation
of hope, wishful thinking and myth, rather than an objectively "true"
and rational viewpoint.
Understanding what "god wants us to do" is problematic.
Where do we find out what that is?
Through personal revelations made to us?
Through reading a discredited or historically suspect publication like
the Bible?
>
>
> > Is he anthopomorphic? You describe your god-being as the father
> > Almighty, etc, so I assume that he is,in your view humanoid to an
> > extent.
>
> If I am going by the dictionary: *described or thought of as having a human
> form or human attributes* than yes and no. In Genesis 1, man is described
> as being created *in God's image, after God's likeness: and given the power
> over the earth like God had* God made man like 'Himself': Man is able to
> create another human being like 'himself' So, God has the attributes of man
> – NO, I think it is the other way around. Man has the attributes of a
> creating being. That is why our sin is not what we do, but what we believe.
> Romans 1:25: *who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
> served the creature more than the Creator,..*
So.. he is a man-type being. Is he then subject to the effects of his
creation like any other material form in the universe?
Is he, in fact, material? Or is he spiritual?
If he is spiritual, then why the image of man thing?
> thea
>
>
>
> > Is he the god of the Old Testament?
>
> Yes
So then he is jealous. (Ten Commandments)
He second guesses himself. (Noah and the Flood)
Gets angry. (See above, and add Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
Ten Plagues)
Has favourites.( Abel, and Jacob)
Allows evil to befall his subjects. (Job)
Is sexist. (Everywhere)
Is the Creator of Evil. (the Serpent)
>
>
> > How is he related to the son he resurrected?
>
> God, Jehovah, is the Father of Jesus, Who HE raised from the dead!
See my Trinity discussion above.
>
>
> > I have more, but let me start with these. It is long since I tried to
> > get a clear idea from Christians what their image of God is.
>
> Oh no – and you pick me!! I can guarantee you that the church has changed
> over the last 50 years dramatically. I will be giving you the ancient ideas
> that most do not believe anymore. thea
Why is the church changing?
If the message is universally true, it should be true today like it
was 2000 years ago, not so?
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 8:34 pm, thea <tln...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > thought I would join y'all just to spice up your life a bit.
> > > I am a pastor's daughter - deprogrammed and believe that God raised
> > > Jesus from the Dead.
> > > I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. etc.
thea nob
Drafterman
> The dirt is *Atoms* and the breath of life from God was the substance.
> I do not have the science behind it, because I have never been asked or
> studied this phase of our human beingness. However, I can guarantee
> you that I also, would like to know more.
> However, the more is *sin*. Our human knowledge of the universe
> was only gained because of Adam's sin.
> thea
don't know".
>
> read more »
thea nob
Drafterman
> Drafterman: just because you think you are so smart -- how did the DNA get
> into us?
> thea
>
> read more »
thea nob
The Belly Bionic
thea nob wrote:
> Huh! Not in Adams day -- In Adams day at the beginning of our now
> human race of Israelites, and possibly us - the *mud* we were made of
> was perfect. It had not yet been tainted with Adams sin either.
> When God said he made us out of *mud* - that's what he made us out of.
> Meiosis - is something else altogether and sure doesn't explain HOW!!!
> thea
>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com
> <mailto:draft...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 13, 1:08 pm, "thea nob" <thea.n...@gmail.com
> <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Drafterman: just because you think you are so smart -- how did
> the DNA get
> > into us?
> > thea
>
> Meiosis.
>
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Drafterman
> <drafter...@gmail.com <mailto:drafter...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 13, 7:33 am, "thea nob" <thea.n...@gmail.com
> <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > The dirt is *Atoms* and the breath of life from God was the
> substance.
> > > > I do not have the science behind it, because I have never
> been asked or
> > > > studied this phase of our human beingness. However, I can
> guarantee
> > > > you that I also, would like to know more.
> > > > However, the more is *sin*. Our human knowledge of the universe
> > > > was only gained because of Adam's sin.
> > > > thea
> >
> > > You could have saved us all a lot of time by just simply saying "I
> > > don't know".
> >
> > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Drafterman
> <drafter...@gmail.com <mailto:drafter...@gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 12, 5:03 pm, "thea nob" <thea.n...@gmail.com
> <drafter...@gmail.com <mailto:drafter...@gmail.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Jul 12, 11:01 am, "thea nob" <thea.n...@gmail.com
> <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > You are misunderstanding me. Jesus when he was on
> earth had the
> > > same
> > > > > > > > genetic makeup of the first Adam (remember Adam and
> Eve) God
> > > breathed
> > > > > > > life
> > > > > > > > into Adam and he was a living soul. So God did it a
> second time,
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > time because of sin, he used the woman to complete a
> living soul,
> > > > > Jesus!
> > > > > > > > thea
> >
> > > > > > > Ok, so what was the genetic makeup of Adam?
> >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Drafterman <
> > > drafter...@gmail.com <mailto:drafter...@gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 10:47 pm, "thea nob"
> > > > > drafter...@gmail.com <mailto:drafter...@gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 7:40 pm, "thea nob"
> <thea.n...@gmail.com <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > drafter...@gmail.com <mailto:drafter...@gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:39 pm, "thea nob"
> <thea.n...@gmail.com <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:02 PM,
> Drafterman <
> > > > > > > > > drafter...@gmail.com <mailto:drafter...@gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, "thea nob" <
> > > thea.n...@gmail.com <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:36 AM,
> konrad <
> > > > > > > darnok...@gmail.com <mailto:darnok...@gmail.com>
thea nob
Meiosis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In biology or life science, meiosis (pronounced my-oh-sis) is a process of reduction division in which the number of chromosomes per cell is cut in half. In animals, meiosis always results in the formation of gametes. The word "meiosis" comes from the Greek verb meioun, meaning "to make small," since it results in a reduction in chromosome number in the gamete cell.
Meiosis is essential for sexual reproduction and therefore occurs in all eukaryotes (including single-celled organisms) that reproduce sexually. A few eukaryotes, notably the Bdelloid rotifers, have lost the ability to carry out meiosis and have acquired the ability to reproduce by parthenogenesis. Meiosis does not occur in archaea or bacteria, which reproduce via asexual processes such as mitosis or binary fission. Each cell has half the number of chromosomes as the parent cell.
During meiosis, the genome of a diploid germ cell, which is composed of long segments of DNA packaged into chromosomes, undergoes DNA replication followed by two rounds of division, resulting in four haploid cells. Each of these cells contain one complete set of chromosomes, or half of the genetic content of the original cell. If meiosis produces gametes, these cells must fuse during fertilization to create a new diploid cell, or zygote before any new growth can occur. Thus, the division mechanism of meiosis is a reciprocal process to the joining of two genomes that occurs at fertilization. Because the chromosomes of each parent undergo genetic recombination during meiosis, each gamete, and thus each zygote, will have a unique genetic blueprint encoded in its DNA. Together, meiosis and fertilization constitute sexuality in the eukaryotes, and generate genetically distinct individuals in populations.
In all plants, and in many protists, meiosis results in the formation of haploid cells that can divide vegetatively without undergoing fertilization. In these groups, gametes are produced by mitosis.
Meiosis uses many of the same biochemical mechanisms employed during mitosis to accomplish the redistribution of chromosomes. There are several features unique to meiosis, most importantly the pairing and genetic recombination between homologous chromosomes.
History
Meiosis was discovered and described for the first time in sea urchin eggs in 1876, by noted German biologist Oscar Hertwig (1849-1922). It was described again in 1883, at the level of chromosomes, by Belgian zoologist Edouard Van Beneden (1846-1910), in Ascaris worms' eggs. The significance of meiosis for reproduction and inheritance, however, was described only in 1890 by German biologist August Weismann (1834-1914), who noted that two cell divisions were necessary to transform one diploid cell into four haploid cells if the number of chromosomes had to be maintained. In 1911 the American geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866-1945) observed crossover in Drosophila melanogaster meiosis and provided the first true genetics.
Evolution
Meiosis is thought to have appeared 1.4 billion years ago. The only supergroup of eukaryotes which does not have meiosis in all organisms is excavata. The other five major supergroups, opisthokonts, amoebozoa, rhizaria, archaeplastida and chromalveolates all seem to have genes for meiosis universally present, even if not always functional. Some excavata species do have meiosis which is consistent with the hypothesis that excavata is an ancient, paraphyletic grade. An example of eukaryotic organism in which meiosis does not exist is euglenoid.
Occurrence of meiosis in eukaryotic life cycles
Gametic life cycle.
Zygotic life cycle.
Sporic life cycle.Main article: Biological life cycle
Meiosis occur in eukaryotic life cycles involving sexual reproduction, comprising of the constant cyclical process of meiosis and fertilization. This takes place alongside normal mitotic cell division. In multicellular organisms, there is an intermediary step between the diploid and haploid transition where the organism grows. The organism will then produce the germ cells that continue in the life cycle. The rest of the cells, called somatic cells, function within the organism and will die with it.
Cycling meiosis and fertilisation events produces a series of transitions back and forth between alternating haploid and diploid states. The organism phase of the life cycle can occur either during the diploid state (gametic life cycle), or during the haploid state (zygotic life cycle), or both (sporic life cycle, in which there two distinct organism phases, one during the haploid state and the other during the diploid state). In this sense, there are three types of life cycles that utilize sexual reproduction, differentiated by the location of the organisms phase(s). In the gametic life cycle, the species is diploid, grown from a diploid cell called the zygote. In the zygotic life cycle the species is haploid instead, spawned by the proliferation and differentiation of a single haploid cell called the gamete. Humans, for example, are diploid creatures. Human stem cells undergo meiosis to create haploid gametes, which are spermatozoa for males or ova for females. These gametes then fertilize in the Fallopian tubes of the female, producing a diploid zygote. The zygote undergoes progressive stages of mitosis and differentiation, turns into a blastocyst and then gets implanted in the uterus endometrium to create an embryo.
In the gametic life cycle, of which humans are a part, the living organism is diploid in nature. Here, we will generalize the example of human reproduction stated previously. The organism's diploid germ-line stem cells undergo meiosis to create haploid gametes, which fertilize to form the zygote. The diploid zygote undergoes repeated cellular division by mitosis to grow into the organism. Mitosis is a related process to meiosis that creates two cells that are genetically identical to the parent cell. The general principle is that mitosis creates somatic cells and meiosis creates germ cells.
In the zygotic life cycle, the living organism is haploid. Two organisms of opposing gender contribute their haploid germ cells to form a diploid zygote. The zygote undergoes meiosis immediately, creating four haploid cells. These cells undergo mitosis to create the organism. Many fungi and many protozoa are members of the zygotic life cycle.
Finally, in the sporic life cycle, the living organism alternates between haploid and diploid states. Consequently, this cycle is also known as the alternation of generations. The diploid organism's germ-line cells undergo meiosis to produce gametes. The gametes proliferate by mitosis, growing into a haploid organism. The haploid organism's germ cells then combine with another haploid organism's cells, creating the zygote. The zygote undergoes repeated mitosis and differentiation to become the diploid organism again. The sporic life cycle can be considered a fusion of the gametic and zygotic life cycles.
Process
Because meiosis is a "one-way" process, it cannot be said to engage in a cell cycle as mitosis does. However, the preparatory steps that lead up to meiosis are identical in pattern and name to the interphase of the mitotic cell cycle.
Interphase is divided into three phases:
Growth 1 (G1) phase: Immediately follows cytokinesis. This is a very active period, where the cell synthesizes its vast array of proteins, including the enzymes and structural proteins it will need for growth. In G1 stage each of the 46 human chromosomes consists of a single (very long) molecule of DNA. At this point cells are 46,2N, identical to somatic cells.
Synthesis (S) phase: The genetic material is replicated: each of its chromosomes duplicates (46,2N). The cell is still diploid, however, because it still contains the same number of centromeres. However, the identical sister chromatids are in the chromatin form because spiralisation and condensation into denser chromosomes have not taken place yet. It will take place in prophase I in meiosis.
Growth 2 (G2) phase: G2 phase is absent in Meiosis
Interphase is immediately followed by meiosis I and meiosis II. Meiosis I consists of segregating the homologous chromosomes from each other, then dividing the diploid cell into two haploid cells each containing one of the segregates. Meiosis II consists of decoupling each chromosome's sister strands (chromatids), segregating the DNA into two sets of strands (each set containing one of each homologue), and dividing both haploid, duplicated cells to produce four haploid, unduplicated cells. Meiosis I and II are both divided into prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase subphases, similar in purpose to their analogous subphases in the mitotic cell cycle. Therefore, meiosis encompasses the interphase (G1, S, G2), meiosis I (prophase I, metaphase I, anaphase I, telophase I), and meiosis II (prophase II, metaphase II, anaphase II, telophase II).
Meiosis generates genetic diversity in two ways: (1) independent assortment of chromosomes at both of the meiotic divisions allows genetic differences among gametes; and (2) physical exchange of chromosomal regions by homologous recombination during prophase I results in new genetic combinations within chromosomes.
Meiosis I
In meiosis I, the homologous pairs in a diploid cell separate , producing two haploid cells (46, N). The 46 chromosomes number is significant. A regular diploid cell contains 46 chromosomes and is considered 2N because it contains 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes. However, after meiosis I, although the cell contains 46 chromosomes it is only considered N because later in anaphase I the identical sister chromatids will remain together as the spindle pulls the pair toward the pole of the new cell. In meiosis II, a process similar to mitosis will occur whereby the sister chromatids are finally split, creating 2 haploid cells (23, N).
Prophase I
Homologous chromosomes pair and crossing over, or recombination, occurs--a step unique to meiosis. Chromosomes form structures called synapses. The paired chromosomes are called bivalents or tetrads, which have two chromosomes and four chromatids, with one chromosome coming from each parent. At this stage, non-sister chromatids may cross-over at points called chiasmata.
Leptotene
The first stage of prophase I is the leptotene stage, also known as leptonema, from Greek words meaning "thin threads."[1] During this stage, individual chromosomes begin to condense into long strands within the nucleus. However the two sister chromatids are still so tightly bound that they are indistinguishable from one another. The chromosomes in the leptotene stage show a specific arrangement where the telomeres are oriented towards the nuclear membrane. Hence, this stage is called "bouquet stage".
Zygotene
The zygotene stage, also known as zygonema, from Greek words meaning "paired threads,"[1] occurs as the chromosomes approximately line up with each other into homologous chromosomes. The combined homologous chromosomes are said to be bivalent. They may also be referred to as a tetrad, a reference to the four sister chromatids. The two homologous chromosomes become "zipped" together, forming the synaptonemal complex, in a process known as synapsis.
Pachytene
The pachytene stage, also known as pachynema, from Greek words meaning "thick threads,"[1] contains the following chromosomal crossover. Nonsister chromatids of homologous chromosomes randomly exchange segments of genetic information over regions of homology. (Sex chromosomes, however, are not identical, and only exchange information over a small region of homology.) Exchange takes place at sites where recombination nodules or chiasmata (singular: chiasma) have formed. The exchange of information between the non-sister chromatids results in a recombination of information; each chromosome has the complete set of information it had before, and there are no gaps formed as a result of the process. Because the chromosomes cannot be distinguished in the synaptonemal complex, the actual act of crossing over is not perceivable through the microscope.
Diplotene
During the diplotene stage, also known as diplonema, from Greek words meaning "two threads,"[1] the synaptonemal complex degrades and homologous chromosomes separate from one another a little. The chromosomes themselves uncoil a bit, allowing some transcription of DNA. However, the homologous chromosomes of each bivalent remain tightly bound at chiasmata, the regions where crossing-over occurred. The chiasmata remain on the chromosomes until they are severed in Anaphase I.
In fetal oogenesis all developing oocytes develop to this stage and stop before birth. This suspended state is referred to as the dictyotene stage and remains so until puberty. In males, only spermatogonia exist until meiosis begins at puberty.
Diakinesis
Chromosomes condense further during the diakinesis stage, from Greek words meaning "moving through."[1] This is the first point in meiosis where the four parts of the tetrads are actually visible. Sites of crossing over entangle together, effectively overlapping, making chiasmata clearly visible. Other than this observation, the rest of the stage closely resembles prometaphase of mitosis; the nucleoli disappear, the nuclear membrane disintegrates into vesicles, and the meiotic spindle begins to form.
Synchronous processes
During these stages, centrosomes, each containing a pair of centrioles are migrating to the two poles of the cell. These centrosomes, which were duplicated during S-phase, function as microtubule organizing centers nucleating microtubules, essentially cellular ropes and poles, during crossing over. They invade the nuclear membrane after it disintegrates, attaching to the chromosomes at the kinetochore. The kinetochore functions as a motor, pulling the chromosome along the attached microtubule toward the originating centriole, like a train on a track. There are four kinetochores on each tetrad, but the pair of kinetochores on each sister chromatid fuses and functions as a unit during meiosis I. [2][3]
Microtubules that attach to the kinetochores are known as kinetochore microtubules. Other microtubules will interact with microtubules from the opposite centriole. These are also nonkinetochore microtubules.
Meiosis-phases
Metaphase I
Homologous pairs move together along the phase plate: as kinetochore microtubules from both centrioles attach to their respective kinetochores, the homologous chromosomes align along an equatorial plane that bisects the spindle, due to continuous counterbalancing forces exerted on the bivalents by the microtubules emanating from the two kinetochores of homologous chromosomes. The physical basis of the independent assortment of chromosomes is the random orientation of each bivalent along the metaphase plate.
Anaphase I
Kinetochore microtubules shorten, severing the recombination nodules and pulling homologous chromosomes apart. Since each chromosome only has one functional unit of a pair of kinetochores[3], whole chromosomes are pulled toward opposing poles, forming two haploid sets. Each chromosome still contains a pair of sister chromatids. Nonkinetochore microtubules lengthen, pushing the centrioles further a part. The cell elongates in preparation for division down the middle.
Telophase I
The last meiotic division effectively ends when the centromeres arrive at the poles. Each daughter cell now has half the number of chromosomes but each chromosome consists of a pair of chromatids. This effect produces a variety of responses from the neuro-synchromatic enzyme, also known as NSE. The microtubules that make up the spindle network disappear, and a new nuclear membrane surrounds each haploid set. The chromosomes uncoil back into chromatin. Cytokinesis, the pinching of the cell membrane in animal cells or the formation of the cell wall in plant cells, occurs, completing the creation of two daughter cells.
Cells enter a period of rest known as interkinesis or interphase II. No DNA replication occurs during this stage.
telophase I contains no nucleus, two daughter cells, and chromatids remain attached.
Meiosis II
Meiosis II is the second part of the meiotic process. Much of the process is similar to mitosis and meiosis I. End result is production of four haploid cells (23,1N) from the two haploid cells (46,1N) produced in meiosis I.
Prophase II takes an inversely proportional time compared to telophase I. In this prophase we see the disappearance of the nucleoli and the nuclear envelope again as well as the shortening and thickening of the chromatids. Centrioles move to the polar regions and arrange spindle fibers for the second meiotic division.
In metaphase II, the centromeres contain two kinetochores, that attach to spindle fibers from the centrosomes (centrioles) at each pole. The new equatorial metaphase plate is rotated by 90 degrees when compared to meiosis I, perpendicular to the previous plate.
This is followed by anaphase II, where the centromeres are cleaved, allowing microtubules attached to the kinetochores to pull the sister chromatids apart. The sister chromatids by convention are now called sister chromosomes as they move toward opposing poles.
The process ends with telophase II, which is similar to telophase I, and is marked by uncoiling and lengthening of the chromosomes and the disappearance of the microtubules. Nuclear envelopes reform and cleavage or cell wall formation eventually produces a total of four daughter cells, each with a haploid set of chromosomes. Meiosis is now complete.
The Significance of Meiosis
Meiosis facilitates stable sexual reproduction. Without the halving of ploidy, or chromosome count, fertilization would result in zygotes that have twice the number of chromosomes than the zygotes from the previous generation. Successive generations would have an exponential increase in chromosome count, resulting in an unwieldy genome that would cripple the reproductive fitness of the species. Polyploidy, the state of having three or more sets of chromosomes, also results in developmental abnormalities or lethality [4]. Polyploidy is poorly tolerated in animal species. Plants, however, regularly produce fertile, viable polyploids. Polyploidy has been implicated as an important mechanism in plant speciation.
Most importantly, however, meiosis produces genetic variety in gametes that propagate to offspring. Recombination and independent assortment allow for a greater diversity of genotypes in the population. As a system of creating diversity, meiosis allows a species to maintain stability under environmental changes.
Nondisjunction
The normal separation of chromosomes in Meiosis I or sister chromatids in meiosis II is termed disjunction. When the separation is not normal, it is called nondisjunction. This results in the production of gametes which have either more or less of the usual amount of genetic material, and is a common mechanism for trisomy or monosomy. Nondisjunction can occur in the meiosis I or meiosis II, phases of cellular reproduction, or during mitosis.
This is a cause of several medical conditions in humans:
Down Syndrome - trisomy of chromosome 21
Patau Syndrome - trisomy of chromosome 13
Edward Syndrome - trisomy of chromosome 18
Klinefelter Syndrome - extra X chromosomes in males - ie XXY, XXXY, XXXXY
Turner Syndrome - atypical X chromosome dosage in females - ie XO, XXX, XXXX
XYY Syndrome - an extra Y chromosome in males
Meiosis in humans
In females, meiosis occurs in cells known as oogonia (singular: oogonium). Each oogonium that initiates meiosis will divide twice to form a single oocyte and three polar bodies. However, before these divisions occur, these cells stop at the diplotene stage of meiosis I and lay dormant within a protective shell of somatic cells called the follicle. Follicles begin growth at a steady pace in a process known as folliculogenesis, and a small number enter the menstrual cycle. Menstruated oocytes continue meiosis I and arrest at meiosis II until fertilization. The process of meiosis in females occurs during oogenesis, and differs from the typical meiosis in that it features a long period of meiotic arrest known as the Dictyate stage and lacks the assistance of centrosomes.
In males, meiosis occurs in precursor cells known as spermatogonia that divide twice to become sperm. These cells continuously divide without arrest in the seminiferous tubules of the testicles. Sperm is produced at a steady pace. The process of meiosis in males occurs during spermatogenesis.
DreadGeekGrrl
Before I begin educating you on the subject of DNA and meiosis, let me
make a friendly suggestion. When you are out of your depth, just say
"I don't know" and be done with it. It will save you moments of
embarassment:
Firstly, mud does not have DNA and speculations about RNA having
initially having appeared in a crystalline mud-like substance not-with-
standing it is simply wildly inaccurate to say that the first humans
were made of 'mud', they weren't. Meiosis, which would have had to
happen if Adam and Eve were human being (as opposed to, say, viruses)
is a process of cell division where the result is two daughter
cells.
Now, let's deal with the question of where DNA came from. I am in the
RNA-world camp because it appears that is the hypothesis that has the
most support for it. RNA is a molecular nucleotide built on three of
the four same bases as DNA (ACG with T replaced with U in the former).
RNA primarily acts as a messenger in both prokaryotes (bacteria,
archea and their kin) and eurkaryotes (pretty much everything else).
Certain features of functional RNA we find in nature (transfer or
tRNA, ribosomal RNA, etc.) are *precisely* the kind of things we would
predict to find if we could turn the clock back and observe life in
its very earliest stages. The earliest forms of life probably (I say
probably) resembled viruses as much as anything we can observe today.
Now, as far as how DNA got 'into the first humans', as you so
inelegantly put it, keep in mind that for there to *be* humans there
had to be DNA. Life had been steaming along for three billion years
before it hit on the rather clever arrangement we class as primates
and it took another several million years before primates had evolved
into hominids. Humans have only been around, in our modern anatomical
form, for 100,000 years and that's the outer estimate.
I would like to thank you, however, for illustrating *precisely* the
problem with Creationism. To say that Adam and Eve were made of mud
is to close down curiosity and preclude questioning. If biologists
*really* believed the Adam and Eve story we would never have even
discovered DNA because we would be looking in the wrong places. There
are all kinds of things that make no sense EXCEPT in light of looking
at living things as a product of ongoing evolutionary selection
pressures. Your belief that human beings were *literally* made from
mud and that then, somehow, DNA 'got into' these humans who then
passed it along is the kind of ideas that illustrate perfectly the
problem with Creationism. So, for that, I thank you.
Cheers
DGG
On Jul 13, 11:36 am, "thea nob" <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Huh! Not in Adams day -- In Adams day at the beginning of our now human
> race of Israelites, and possibly us - the *mud* we were made of was
> perfect. It had not yet been tainted with Adams sin either.
> When God said he made us out of *mud* - that's what he made us out of.
> Meiosis - is something else altogether and sure doesn't explain HOW!!!
> thea
>
>
> read more »
thea nob
The Belly Bionic
copying and pasting a Wikipedia page. You've only demonstrated that you
understand Google and how to copy and paste text.
thea
The Belly Bionic
Googled it?
Drafterman
> Huh! Not in Adams day -- In Adams day at the beginning of our now human
> race of Israelites, and possibly us - the *mud* we were made of was
> perfect. It had not yet been tainted with Adams sin either.
> When God said he made us out of *mud* - that's what he made us out of.
> Meiosis - is something else altogether and sure doesn't explain HOW!!!
> thea
processes of biology (meiosis, sexual reproduction/fertilization,
gestation, etc.) I full intended to be expected to go down the path of
regression until we get to "Well where did the first DNA come from" or
some variation. Seems DGG cut us all off at the pass. But I had my
answer prepared and I feel it is still relevant.
We don't know exactly how the first life formed. That is: "I don't
know".
But here is the funny thing about "I don't know". It isn't code for
"Insert your fictional story here" or "I don't know ANYTHING".
Just because we don't have a 100% completed answer to a question
doesn't mean you get to sweep aside what we do know and insert your
made-up answer.
It's clear that live DID form, but these first organisms were simple
and unicellular. The hypotheses surrounding this event are known as
abiogenesis (life from non-life). Regardless of the details, humans
(and all the other "kinds" of animals listed in the Bible) did not
form from abiogenesis. We did not come from "mud". If anything, it
seems that life in general came from the oceans, either on the surface
(primordial soup) or heat vents in the depths (primordial sandwich).
>
> read more »
thea
Drafterman
> I believe the first man, Adam, was made from the *mud* and the breath of
> life that God gave him gave him all the DNA, or whatever he needed to be
> like God. Adam was formed to look and act like God. When he sinned, some
> way the DNA was changed because of sin. thea
provide are specifics. What specific DNA did God allegedly give Adam?
What color was Adam's hair? Eyes? Height? Was he lactose intolerant?
What was his skin color?
In what way did "sin" alter his genetics? And why does this process
not seem to occur now?
>
> read more »
thea
From Critical Commentary:
Genesis 1:26 *The last stage in the progress of creation being now reached--God
Said, Let us make man—words which show the peculiar importance of the work to be done, the formation of a creature, who was to be God's representative, clothed with authority and rule as visible head and monarch of the world. In our image, after our likeness—This was a peculiar distinction—the value attached to which appears in the words being twice mentioned. And in what did this image of God consist?—not in the erect form or features of man, not in his intellect; for the devil and his angels are, in this respect, far superior—not in his immortality; for he has not, like God, a past as well as a future eternity of being; but in the moral dispositions of his soul, commonly called original righteousness (Ecc. 7.29). As the new creation is only a restoration of this image, the history of the one throws light on the other; and we are informed that it is renewed after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness and true holiness (Col. 8.10; Eph. 4.24).*
theaDreadGeekGrrl
On Jul 13, 1:38 pm, "thea nob" <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks DGG.
> I appreciate what you are saying and I do understand it.
> Life and all living changed when Adam sinned - so I am saying it was in the
> mud, and God took it out of the mud, to keep mankind from making evil beings
> with it.
problem...none of what you say makes any sense chemically or
biologically. Just off the top of my head and with the TV in the
background distracting me here's a first pass with the problems with
your trying to make myth be science:
1> The idea that DNA was 'in the mud' is nonsensical. If you are
going to make this statement please provide an operational definition
of 'in the mud' so that the statement can be evaluated.
2> You do not propose a mechanism that DNA could be 'in the mud' NOR
do you explain what you mean by life changed when Adam sinned.
3> Again, as I said before, your statement and all creationism is a
curiosity killer. You are reaching for an explanation to try to fit
your religious belief onto chemistry and biology. It won't work
because you have no real idea what DNA is, the chemistry underlying
and how entirely nonsensical your statement is.
> What we see now has evolved, therefore all of humankind, all animals,
> everything in the evolution process has changed. What we have now is still
> changing.
> Am I right or wrong?
I'm sorry if this is harsh but there's simply no other way to put it.
Cheers
DGG
>
> read more »
Dag Yo
as a new video in my subscriptions today and it looked interesting.
So Thea, i've found a youtube video that I think relates to your
conversation with DGG. Check it out from about 1:50-3:15 to see the
part that is directly related.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLtBLucfIrg
thea
thea
DreadGeekGrrl
Again, you fail to grasp some very plain features of the natural world
and you impose on biology a requirement that it share you manifest
ignorance of genetics, molecular biology, molecular genetics and
carbon-based chemistry. So let me make this abundantly clear; what
you propose that God made humans from dirt and that there was DNA 'in
the dirt' (which you have failed to provide an operational definition
for, I notice) did not happen because it is IMPOSSIBLE. You can
maintain that when 'sin' (whatever that might mean) entered the world
everything changed all you wish. NONE of that has to do with the
*actual* events that happened on *this* planet. We *know* (not think
but know) that life began sometime in the first billion years or so
after the formation of the planet. We *know* (not think but know),
that DNA is a carbon-based molecule (glucose being the backbone) which
describes all life on Earth. We *know* (not think but know), that
human beings are the process of a long period of evolution of life
forms which started very simple but grew increasingly complex.
We are as certain of the above as we are that the Earth orbits around
the sun and that water is made of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen
atom. THAT is the level of certainty we are talking about. I know,
I know, that's not what you heard in church but the last I checked
church is neither a undergrad or graduate level biology class. You
are, of course, free to continue to believe something that is
manifestly contradicted by the facts. Neither I nor anyone else can
convince you to do otherwise, but the scientific community is in no
way obliged to go along with your fantastic conflating of a mythology
with facts. There is NO evidentiary support for the Adam and Eve and
EVERY indication that the narrative woven together by evolutionary
biology is correct. There was no Adam or Eve, Thea (and don't invoke
mitochondrial Eve because that is an entirely different subject
altogether and the I don't know a biologist who doesn't want to slap
silly the team that came up with that term not realizing what kind of
problem they were creating for the rest of us) and this idea that
'sin' somehow changed the genetic nature of all life is as ridiculous
sounding as the idea that Zeus transformed himself into a swan.
Cheers
DGG
On Jul 14, 7:24 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DGG: Thank you, but I still maintain that when *sin* entered into the
> scheme of things that everything changed. God did not want Adam making a
> *new man* who was made from the DNA in dirt, but without the *spirit*. A
> humanoid was not in God's plans.
> *Sin* as we understand it, is always based on something we have done that is
> supposedly wrong. However, God's *sin* is that we don't believe that *He
> exists*.
> In what I have read, it is not plausible, yet! to believe as you do. I
> don't think science can say for certain that this is definitely the way it
> worked. Looking back we can guess that it may be probable, but we cannot
> say for certain.
> thea
>
thea
Drafterman
> my comment:
>
> From Critical Commentary:
>
> Genesis 1:26 *The last stage in the progress of creation being now reached--
>
> *Said, Let us make man*—words which show the peculiar importance of the work
> our image, after our likeness*—This was a peculiar distinction—the value
> did this image of God consist?—not in the erect form or features of man, not
> in his intellect; for the devil and his angels are, in this respect, far
> superior—not in his immortality; for he has not, like God, a past as well as
> a future eternity of being; but in the moral dispositions of his soul,
> the other; and we are informed that it is renewed after the image of God in
> knowledge, righteousness and true holiness (Col. 8.10; Eph. 4.24).*
> thea
you highlight them?
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
DreadGeekGrrl
Where do you get the idea that carbon materialized out of *nothing*?
I don't recall saying that, in fact, I can't recall anyone OTHER than
Creationists saying that the planet or anything else came from
*nothing*. (The depths of Creationist ignorance on these matters is a
wonder to behold)
Carbon is an element found in stars. Our solar system, in fact, is a
later generation star meaning that it is the product of other
supernovae.
What formed the planet, when the material that became Sol congealed
there was a large disc still orbiting the center of gravity that the
sun is. As all educated people know, gravity is the warping of space-
time by mass and as collisions of dust occurred these started to clump
together, forming larger bodies with their own attractive mass. Over
time, these objects grew larger, attracting yet more materials. Over
the course of several million years, the planets that we know formed
by the process of these collisions. So the planets did not 'form from
nothing'. Rather, they formed because mass warps space-time which
creates an attractive force.
Now, of course, you are going to ask 'where did the first generation
stars' come from and, of course, being too lazy to actually look any
of this up yourself (it's just a fact, you could've Googled all of
this information yourself but you didn't and the only reason you
didn't is sheer intellectual laziness on your part, I refuse to spare
you that honesty) they came to be through much the same process. After
the Universe had cooled down after the initial inflationary period,
some regions of space-time were more dense than others. These dense
spaces congealed into nebulae which are the birthplace of stars.
Thea, you really should not reject an idea you know NOTHING about and
the mere fact that you asked 'how did a speck of carbon ever
materialize out of nothing' means you have less-than-no idea about
cosmology. The idea that the planets formed 'from nothing' means you
have not read a single word (or if you have didn't retain) anything
about solar system formation. Do you not have a public library in
your town? Does that library not have a single issue of Scientific
American in it?
Again, you illustrate the kind of no-nothingness that Creationism
encourages in its adherents. Too lazy to do any reading on the topic
yourself, you reject that which you do not understand and will not
make the effort to understand.
Cheers
DGG
Cheers
DGG
On Jul 14, 8:20 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, DGG, I appreciate your attempt to educate me with what knowledge
> we now know. But if this is so, how did a speck of *carbon* ever
> materialize out of nothing? And where did the gas come from? What formed
> the planet or caused it to form from nothing?
> thea
>
thea
DreadGeekGrrl
On Jul 14, 9:05 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I thank you, DGG, this is interesting. It has been a long while since I
> have been in school. The years are passing fast, and I am still wondering
> the *how to's* of everything. However, my belief is that there had to be a
> starting point.
> Who made the *starting point*? Everything we have ever
> created for mankind's use has started with a Thought process. Who did the
> *Thought process* for the planet's?
own, Google "solar system formation"? I'm not your teacher and while
I don't mind discussing these things, your intellectual laziness is
quite trying. You have no idea about subject matter and so you are
demanding that I carry the water for BOTH of us in it. Saying "I
thank you" doesn't change the fact that you are not holding up your
end of the bargain.
> You see you and I are going to agree to disagree forever, or we are going to
> end up on this magically chain of events forever. And I am happy to have
> you around because I am learning more than I ever thought I would be able to
> learn.
When's the last time you picked up a popular science book? When's the
last time you bothered to read an issue of Scientific American?
> I believe that there is a God in heaven who started this process, since HE
> says, He lives in eternity - the fourth dimension.
dimensional space three spatial dimensions and a time dimension.
>If God is living in the
> *fourth dimension*, then could you say their could be *life* in the fifth
> dimension?
phenomena, but not a dimension.
Thea, again, why don't you try Googling for "solar system formation"
or "RNA world hypothesis" or "human evolution". Why am I supposed to
do your homework for you?
Cheers
DGG
Dag Yo
> have been in school. The years are passing fast, and I am still wondering
> the *how to's* of everything. However, my belief is that there had to be a
> starting point. Who made the *starting point*? Everything we have ever
> created for mankind's use has started with a Thought process. Who did the
> *Thought process* for the planet's?
fact a "who" that started the universe, because when you do you are
necessarily limiting yourself to answers that don't take the form of a
"who". Another problem with what you're doing here is assuming that
there was a "starting point" in the first place, and that isn't
established either as it is entirely possible that the whole of the
universe has always existed.
> have been in school. The years are passing fast, and I am still wondering
> the *how to's* of everything. However, my belief is that there had to be a
> starting point. Who made the *starting point*? Everything we have ever
> created for mankind's use has started with a Thought process. Who did the
> *Thought process* for the planet's?
> You see you and I are going to agree to disagree forever, or we are going to
> end up on this magically chain of events forever. And I am happy to have
> you around because I am learning more than I ever thought I would be able to
> learn.
> I believe that there is a God in heaven who started this process, since HE
> says, He lives in eternity - the fourth dimension. If God is living in the
> *fourth dimension*, then could you say their could be *life* in the fifth
> dimension? How would I prove there was life in the fifth dimension? And is
> that the dimension where our *life* came from originally?
> You see, there are all kinds of theories in nether land.
> So, I hope you keep informing me of what I don't know, and if by chance you
> can give me URLs so I can know where reliable information is to be found on
> the web.
> Thanks again
> thea
>
thea
DreadGeekGrrl
I'm curious, could you list out ALL of the cosmology, evolutionary
biology, geology you have read? Because you are saying "Without the
WHO made all this, the rest doesn't make sense" is *exactly* like me
looking at a book in, say, Mandarin (which I do not read) and saying
'You know, Chinese literature doesn't make any sense to me" and then,
when asked if I actually have read any responding "well, it just isn't
very interesting to me and besides the writing is just horrible" and
then, when asked what specifically I find the matter with Chinese
liiterature responding "well, it's just really bad". THIS is what you
are doing. You have no idea what it is that you reject and yet you
reject it not for any good scientific reasons but because it doesn't
make sense to you within a religious context. However, you haven't
read ANYTHING in the relevant subject matters, despite there being
some very, very good books out on the subject matter.
On Jul 14, 1:20 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I still want to know the WHO of our existence! Without the WHO made all
> this, the rest just doesn't make sense. Someones going to have to get
> really pushing to *think outside the box* to make me believe that we could
> come from nothing to something is a few million or billion years.
as you demonstrate that you've read ANYTHING in the subject matter,
I'm going to continue to tell you that you haven't (because it's
obvious) and continue to challenge you on your opinion. Why, since you
are *willfully and deliberately ignorant* and choose to do your level
best to remain in such a state do you think you have an opinion on the
matter that is any more valuable than that of my cat's whose
contributions to the conversation would be 'meow'. I'm sorry to put
it so harshly but really, I'm mystified by this. You claim to reject
a set of subtle and elegant theories that, if your life depended upon
it, you could present off the top of your head even the most cursory
sketch (no details). How do I know this because you keep saying
things like "came from nothing".
So, thrill me, prove me wrong. Please explain, using as much detail
as you can manage, *precisely* why solar systems could not *possibly*
form without a god to make it happen. Please explain exactly why
matter would NOT accrete, even though everything we know about gravity
suggests that it should. Please explain why supernova should not
produce elements even though all our observations confirm our
predictions that they should produce heavier elements. Please explain
why biochemistry is insufficient to explain DNA.
> Without knowing the WHO why are you still alive?
on with the business of respiration and circulation? Do you *really*
believe that? Are you so genuinely ignorant of anything happening in
the body that you think that if it were not for god making your lungs
inhale and exhale they would stop working? Please tell me that you
have AT LEAST made it as far as the 18th century when educated people
stopped believing such things.
To answer your question directly (paying you the courtesy you do not
feel obliged to reciprocate) I am alive because the autonomic systems
of my body continue to function.
> There is something in each
> of us that makes us think we are worth something. So, what is it that give
> us our EGO?
genetically programmed interest in keeping us alive most of the time
(I have to put this qualifier in because otherwise some theist--you or
someone else--will say that suicides prove that our brains do not have
such an interest. I hate that I have to do this but I understand my
opponent better than they do themselves, it would appear.). The
memeplex that is our ego is simply a way of drawing a hard boundary
between us and the rest of the world. I would suggest that, along
with other reading (which I wouldn't bet the change in my pocket that
you will actually do), you pick up some elementary textbooks on
psychology and read through those.
Cheers
DGG
Dag Yo
> Someones going to have to get
> really pushing to *think outside the box* to make me believe that we could
> come from nothing to something is a few million or billion years.
scientists).
> Without knowing the WHO why are you still alive?
> There is something in each
> of us that makes us think we are worth something. So, what is it that give
> us our EGO?
magic to that, we inherited our brains from our moms and dads.
> this, the rest just doesn't make sense. Someones going to have to get
> really pushing to *think outside the box* to make me believe that we could
> come from nothing to something is a few million or billion years.
> Without knowing the WHO why are you still alive? There is something in each
> of us that makes us think we are worth something. So, what is it that give
> us our EGO?
> thea
>
thea
DGG:
I understand the science I had in college 50 years ago, and all I have gotten and can really understand since then, is what I have learned in laymen's terms. And what you have been handing to me to read. and calling me *dumb* ain't goin' get it, because in science the verbiage HAS REALLY changed.
I have read what you have given me, and quite honestly, most of the verbiage is well over my head, but that's because I didn't work in the discipline so only have gotten over these last 50 years what came from the magazines and newspapers and now a bit on the internet.
And because, you fail to take into account that I am an older retired woman, you are talking to me like some *punk* kid who came out of college so brain-washed that they cannot do the job that we gave them to do. And, yeah! College's brain-wash students to where they think they can be *us* who gave them a job, when all they know is the basic *junk*. To really learn you have to be able to stay at it. I wanted a home and family, I made the choice to do what I have done, and I have had the best of both worlds. But, no, I will never be a scholar in the true sense of the word in science, because now that I am a retiree, I do not wish to spend my time in a school class room. I'd rather be fishing.
You are a scientist, and have been *brain-washed* to believe what you can see, feel, touch, taste, and smell and to you that is all that exists, because you cannot see *God*, there must not be one.
God says that men will worship the *created* more than the *creator.* And is this what the Bible meant, that we would discover all the *how to's* that God used, and so make ourselves *god*. What kind of *faith* do you have to employ to believe all you are teaching. The Bible says we are like the *mist* that passeth away. (2 Peter 2:17) Is this *mist* what we are made of, and what is the *mist of darkness is reserved for ever*? Is this *mist* in our minds to blind us from the truth (John 12:40), and that is why Jesus was raised from the dead to keep us from a second death.
And oh, is our Sun really not having Sun spots? Is it going to go out? When? In our lifetime? Do we know, and do we really know that the Sun is pulling some *funnies* right now. When you see the Sun with no Sun spots it really looks funny. NASA has been very good to print it, so all can see proof that the Sun had no Spots? A cycle, yes it is, but the Sun should have come out of its No Spot cycle and started another Spot cycle and as yet it hasn't. So what is going on? Oh, we are just watching it? Yeah, sure! Thanking the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - puff – all of this existence disappears tomorrow, and where are we going to be?
With understanding life as you do, what happens when we die? Do we just disintegrate back to dust? Or do we immediately become something different in the universe?
The Bible says that man would come to this point in time of, "serving the creature more than the creator."
However, science did not create anything – it only discovers what is already here and how the *already here* worked.
thea
DreadGeekGrrl
On Jul 16, 8:52 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
> DGG:
>
> I understand the science I had in college 50 years ago, and all I have
> gotten and can really understand since then, is what I have learned in
> laymen's terms. And what you have been handing to me to read. and calling
> me *dumb* ain't goin' get it, because in science the verbiage HAS REALLY
> changed.
>
I'm sorry for getting frustrated with you but when people talk about a
subject that they clearly know NOTHING about and will not even do the
*basic* legwork to educate themselves on a subject that is
frustrating. You are talking about a subject matter you know nothing
about. ANYONE who suggests that evolutionary theory says we 'came
from nothing' is demonstrating their manifest ignorance on the subject
matter.
> I have read what you have given me, and quite honestly, most of the verbiage
> is well over my head, but that's because I didn't work in the discipline so
> only have gotten over these last 50 years what came from the magazines and
> newspapers and now a bit on the internet.
in, April I believe, there was an excellent six or seven page piece on
solar system formation. Did you read it? If so, what about it did
you not understand that you think that the solar system formed 'from
nothing' because nothing in that article suggests that it did.
>
> And because, you fail to take into account that I am an older retired woman,
didn't see it as relevant if you are. The issue isn't whether you are
old or young, retired or working. In this discussion the issue is
whether you have ANY idea about the scientific theories you reject.
> you are talking to me like some *punk* kid who came out of college so
> brain-washed that they cannot do the job that we gave them to do.
she doesn't know anything about and who refuses to learn anything
about it. You reject a *scientific* theory for *religious* reasons
and do not even have the intellectual honesty to *say* that you reject
it for religious reasons. You reject standard cosmology NOT for any
good scientific reason because you don't KNOW the cosmology well
enough to frame one. What you know is that the Standard Model doesn't
agree with the Bible and *therefore* it is wrong. You reject
evolutionary biology for precisely the same reasons.
>
> You are a scientist, and have been *brain-washed* to believe what you can
> see, feel, touch, taste, and smell and to you that is all that exists,
> because you cannot see *God*, there must not be one.
all powerful force that controls the recombination of DNA. There is
simply no evidence to support the contention that Adam existed (and
every reason to believe he didn't) and that he did not have DNA
because he was made of mud. If what you are accusing me of is seeing
nature on its own terms then yes, guilty as charged.
>
> And oh, is our Sun really not having Sun spots?
>Is it going to go out?
> When? In our lifetime?
No, sometime in the next 5 billion years or so it will extinguish its
fuel. The fate of the sun and the inner planets is entirely
predictable because we have observed OTHER stars of similar mass and
of the same sequence as our sun in various stages of death.
> Do we know, and do we really know that the Sun is
> pulling some *funnies* right now.
> When you see the Sun with no Sun spots it
> really looks funny.
> NASA has been very good to print it, so all can see
> proof that the Sun had no Spots?
almost insatiable desire to share information; engineers and
scientists.
> A cycle, yes it is, but the Sun should
> have come out of its No Spot cycle and started another Spot cycle and as yet
> it hasn't. So what is going on?
will find out. They will NOT, however, attribute the lack of sun
spots to the action of a god.
> Oh, we are just watching it? Yeah, sure!
> Thanking the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - puff – all of this
> existence disappears tomorrow, and where are we going to be?
> With understanding life as you do, what happens when we die?
> Do we just
> disintegrate back to dust?
VERY long time even your bones will decompose.
> Or do we immediately become something different
> in the universe?
I will be dead and if there is anything for me to worry about I will
have plenty of time to do that worrying then. As a Buddhist, my
problems are all about living *NOW*. When I am dead, I will not be
concerned about when I was alive. Now that I am alive, I should not
waste time worrying about when I am dead.
>
> However, science did not create anything – it only discovers what is already
> here and how the *already here* worked.
want it to. No one is claiming that science MADE the universe. I am
stating that science has explanations for how these phenomena work.
YOU are stating that natural phenomena cannot be understood through
science, even though you are manifestly ignorant of the scientific
method.
Cheers
DGG
BlueSci
> have been in school. The years are passing fast, and I am still wondering
> the *how to's* of everything. However, my belief is that there had to be a
> starting point. Who made the *starting point*? Everything we have ever
> created for mankind's use has started with a Thought process. Who did the
> *Thought process* for the planet's?
> You see you and I are going to agree to disagree forever, or we are going to
> end up on this magically chain of events forever. And I am happy to have
> you around because I am learning more than I ever thought I would be able to
> learn.
> I believe that there is a God in heaven who started this process, since HE
> says, He lives in eternity - the fourth dimension. If God is living in the
> *fourth dimension*, then could you say their could be *life* in the fifth
> dimension? How would I prove there was life in the fifth dimension? And is
> that the dimension where our *life* came from originally?
> You see, there are all kinds of theories in nether land.
> So, I hope you keep informing me of what I don't know, and if by chance you
> can give me URLs so I can know where reliable information is to be found on
> the web.
> Thanks again
> thea
There is a wealth of information and sources there. For some brief
and easily accessible answers to specific questions try looking here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:50 AM, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thea;
>
> > Where do you get the idea that carbon materialized out of *nothing*?
> > I don't recall saying that, in fact, I can't recall anyone OTHER than
> > Creationists saying that the planet or anything else came from
> > *nothing*. (The depths of Creationist ignorance on these matters is a
thea
On Jul 16, 8:52 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:53 PM, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:Thea;
>
> (snipped)
>
> DGG:
>
> I understand the science I had in college 50 years ago, and all I have
> gotten and can really understand since then, is what I have learned in
> laymen's terms. And what you have been handing to me to read. and calling
> me *dumb* ain't goin' get it, because in science the verbiage HAS REALLY
> changed.
>
I'm sorry for getting frustrated with you but when people talk about a
subject that they clearly know NOTHING about and will not even do the
*basic* legwork to educate themselves on a subject that is
frustrating. You are talking about a subject matter you know nothing
about. ANYONE who suggests that evolutionary theory says we 'came
from nothing' is demonstrating their manifest ignorance on the subject
matter.
So, again, when is the last time you picked up a copy of SciAm? Back
> I have read what you have given me, and quite honestly, most of the verbiage
> is well over my head, but that's because I didn't work in the discipline so
> only have gotten over these last 50 years what came from the magazines and
> newspapers and now a bit on the internet.
in, April I believe, there was an excellent six or seven page piece on
solar system formation. Did you read it? If so, what about it did
you not understand that you think that the solar system formed 'from
nothing' because nothing in that article suggests that it did.
>
Because it's not relevant. I didn't know and, quite honestly, I
> And because, you fail to take into account that I am an older retired woman,
didn't see it as relevant if you are. The issue isn't whether you are
old or young, retired or working. In this discussion the issue is
whether you have ANY idea about the scientific theories you reject.
No, I'm talking to you like someone who is holding forth on a subject
> you are talking to me like some *punk* kid who came out of college so
> brain-washed that they cannot do the job that we gave them to do.
she doesn't know anything about and who refuses to learn anything
about it. You reject a *scientific* theory for *religious* reasons
and do not even have the intellectual honesty to *say* that you reject
it for religious reasons. You reject standard cosmology NOT for any
good scientific reason because you don't KNOW the cosmology well
enough to frame one. What you know is that the Standard Model doesn't
agree with the Bible and *therefore* it is wrong. You reject
evolutionary biology for precisely the same reasons.
No, I am a scientist and see no reason to believe that there is any
>
> You are a scientist, and have been *brain-washed* to believe what you can
> see, feel, touch, taste, and smell and to you that is all that exists,
> because you cannot see *God*, there must not be one.
all powerful force that controls the recombination of DNA. There is
simply no evidence to support the contention that Adam existed (and
every reason to believe he didn't) and that he did not have DNA
because he was made of mud. If what you are accusing me of is seeing
nature on its own terms then yes, guilty as charged.
It would appear that that is the case.
>
> And oh, is our Sun really not having Sun spots?
Eventually, yes it will.
>Is it going to go out?
> When? In our lifetime?
No, sometime in the next 5 billion years or so it will extinguish its
fuel. The fate of the sun and the inner planets is entirely
predictable because we have observed OTHER stars of similar mass and
of the same sequence as our sun in various stages of death.
Define 'funnies'.
> Do we know, and do we really know that the Sun is
> pulling some *funnies* right now.
No, it doesn't. It looks like the sun without spots.
> When you see the Sun with no Sun spots it
> really looks funny.
Yes, because NASA is largely staffed by two kinds of people with an
> NASA has been very good to print it, so all can see
> proof that the Sun had no Spots?
almost insatiable desire to share information; engineers and
scientists.
We don't know but fortunately, there are people who are curious and
> A cycle, yes it is, but the Sun should
> have come out of its No Spot cycle and started another Spot cycle and as yet
> it hasn't. So what is going on?
will find out. They will NOT, however, attribute the lack of sun
spots to the action of a god.
What the hell are you on about here?
Ummm. This is relevant to the discussion of sun spots HOW?
> Thanking the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - puff – all of this
> existence disappears tomorrow, and where are we going to be?
>
All of your biological functions cease.
> With understanding life as you do, what happens when we die?
Over time bacteria eat your body, converting it into food. Over a
> Do we just
> disintegrate back to dust?
VERY long time even your bones will decompose.
I don't know. As a Buddhist, that's not my problem. When I am dead,
> Or do we immediately become something different
> in the universe?
I will be dead and if there is anything for me to worry about I will
have plenty of time to do that worrying then. As a Buddhist, my
problems are all about living *NOW*. When I am dead, I will not be
concerned about when I was alive. Now that I am alive, I should not
waste time worrying about when I am dead.
Umm, who said otherwise? Your point doesn't establish what it is you
>
> However, science did not create anything – it only discovers what is already
> here and how the *already here* worked.
want it to. No one is claiming that science MADE the universe. I am
stating that science has explanations for how these phenomena work.
YOU are stating that natural phenomena cannot be understood through
science, even though you are manifestly ignorant of the scientific
method.
Cheers
DGG