To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
Zoe
in order to avoid tracking down the old thread any further. And I'll
be snipping a lot for brevity. Forgive me, okay?
So then....where were we in this delightful discussion of our
differences.
On 10 Dec 2007 02:39:20 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
snip>
>So you're making the claim that there is no creative power in evolution.
>I will absolutely agree that it cannot be detected, but that's far
>different than proving its absence.
flying pink elephants cannot be detected, but we cannot prove their
absence, either.
Come on now, isn't that a rather useless concession? Nobody cares if
you can or cannot prove their absence. The fact that they cannot be
detected is sufficient to live your life as if they do not
exist....which matters not a whit. But to live one's life as if God's
creative power does not exist is to suffer eternal loss.
snip>
>> I'm not sure what exactly you are misunderstanding. I voluntarily
>> choose to love and worship the God of the Bible because the record of
>> His love towards earthlings has awakened a response of love within me.
>
>Job? The Egyptians? "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who
>has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never
>slept with a man." (Num 31:17)
hold up. That last, when read in context, is a command from Moses,
not God.
The Israelites lived among societies that conducted their wars as we
see in the Bible, according to the cultural mores of their time. Not
everything Moses said was exactly what God wanted to say. Jesus, when
he lived on earth, said of Moses' instructions, "It has been
said....but I say unto you...." or "Moses, because of the hardness of
your hearts suffered you to.....but from the beginning it was not
so...." or "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you..."
Finally, in Jesus, we are faced with a firsthand knowledge of what God
is really like.
>
>Have you read the OT straight through?
I have read the OT many times, along with the New Testament writers
who throw a floodlight on what God is really like. And by comparing
text to text, I have come to terms with some of the darker moments in
OT history.
For instance, Zephaniah 3:17 (NKJV) depicts God as follows:
"The Lord your God, in your midst, the mighty One, will save. He will
rejoice over you with gladness; He will quiet you in His love; He will
rejoice over you with singing."
Yet there are accounts of God's power wiping out surrounding nations.
How does that fit? Well, the way I see it is that a God Who rejoices
over His children with singing is a God Who will protect His children
at any cost. His children's enemies are His enemies, and He will do
whatever it takes to defend them and protect them.
And in case this seems unfairly partial towards some small group of
Hebrews, note His invitation in Isaiah 45:22 (KJV): "Look unto me and
be ye saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God and there is none
else." Choose to become His, and you will be defended with an
intensity worthy of only the most loving, most powerful parent. Choose
to alienate yourself, and you will be among the enemies of God's
children.
>
>> If you convince me that this same God is actually a sadistic, hateful,
>> uncaring god, I will rebel at the thought of worshiping such a god, and
>> am ready to fight him with every fibre of my being.
>
>And I don't want that.
why not? Do you advocate the mindless worship of a hateful, uncaring
god? We humans are not constituted to respond with joy when hated and
with displeasure when loved. So why are you wanting me to NOT fight a
god who is hateful and unloving?
>
>Right now, as I understand it, you're apply a literal interpretation to a
>book that doesn't exist (specifically, an Old Testament that has a
>message that God loves earthlings). The solution is not to apply that
>interpretation to the actual book, but to gain a better understanding of
>both the book, how the authors understood it, and how people understand
>it now.
>
>God, under a literal interpretation in the Old Testament, is a
>sonofabitch. If you limit yourself to literalism, that's what you're
>stuck with (unless, I guess, you choose not to read those passages).
>There are better interpretations out there that are consistent with a
>loving God, history, and science (even evolution).
I have read the passages and resolved them for myself, but I can
understand why you would want to make them nonliteral. It's an easy
way out of the dilemma. But I submit that the Bible interprets
itself. The revelation of what God is truly like, as revealed by
other writers of scripture, throws light on the Old Testament accounts
of God in relation to Israel. It does not de-literalize the accounts.
It just helps one to understand more about what God is like, about
what is important in light of eternity, about priorities in a universe
that is teeming with life -- physical life. No disembodied
intelligences floating around in space, playing ethereal harps, but
physical worlds, filled with physical beings, living physical lives in
a universe owned by a physical God, Who has promised us way more than
what we find in our few years here on earth. Whether we live or die
in this earthly life is not as important as whether we live or die for
eternity.
snip>
On 10 Dec 2007 04:20:08 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
snip>
>
>>>http://www.jstor.org/view/00143820/di000301/00p08377/0
>>
>> this article is not easily accessible, so tell me, what is it about the
>> fruit fly's changes in morphology that demonstrate evolution in action?
>> And how does this data support macroevolution?
>
>Bother -- sorry 'bout that. I'll email it to you.
got it. Thanks.
snip>
You had asked:
>>How does evolution differ from "real sciences"? Specifically in terms of
>>the Dodd paper above, what do you find lacking there that is not lacking
>>in real science?
the paper itself is scientific. I'm not disputing that.
What is lacking, (for me, anyway) is demonstration of any phenotypical
changes that affect morphology. It is the differences in morphology
that cause species to be classified as belonging to one genus or
another. And I would like to see evidence for these changes. This
paper does not address that.
What is addressed is reproductive isolation as an agent of speciation.
And what would interest me is scientific evidence on the kind of
speciation that shows evolving morphology. If the claim is going to
be made that one species evolves into some other genus, then
experiments should show this. Bacteria, with their brief life spans,
would be a good universe from which to pull samples.
Dodd's experiment shows that reproductive isolation can and does occur
under certain circumstances, but there is no demonstration of any
morphological changes. The stage is set, reproduction is isolated, but
nothing beyond that. There IS one single mention at the beginning that
"speciation is basically a problem of reproductive isolation." Nothing
more. It is the "more" that I'd like to hear about. And why
speciation is a "problem" of reproductive isolation, I don't know. I
would think it would be considered a result or an outcome of
reproductive isolation. Not a problem. But, in any event, that's the
extent of any description of macro-tending speciation, which is the
area that I am contending is not scientific.
As to the article itself, it is written with some ambiguity which left
me confused. But that's okay, I guess, since I'm sure it wasn't
written for the layperson. For instance, Dodd states that four
populations were reared on a starch-based medium and four were reared
on a maltose-based mediium, but in her discussion at the end, she
says, "... all tests were performed using flies that had been reared
on a common medium and had experienced neither starch nor maltose." I
suppose she might mean that all eight populations were taken from a
population reared on a common medium, and were then put on the starch
vs. maltose? Except it sure would have helped to have had an
explanation of how the same samples could have been "reared on starch
and maltose" and also "reared on a common medium....neither starch nor
maltose."
Regardless, the point remains that this article, as scientific as its
methods were, does not produce any scientific evidence of actual
speciation, only evidence of reproductive isolation that supposedly
can lead to speciation. It has not yet reached the area that I'm
questioning as unscientific.
snip>
>>>Finally, once all of that background is firmly in place, you look at the
>>>text itself.
>>
>> pity the poor man on the street who does not have access to all this
>> higher criticism. Must he come to the scholar in order to experience
>> salvation? Definitely not.
>
>Must he become a scholar before making public claims about the correct
>interpretation of scripture? Probably a good idea.
so, again, only the scholar can make public claims about salvation
(which is what the scriptures are about)? If this is your position, I
think you would be competing with the pope for that position of
authority.
snip>
>>>Is it "random" that's giving you problems? As used in "Random Mutation
>>>+ Natural Selection", it has a technical meaning: to a first
>>>approximation, each allele has an equal chance of being modified.
>>
>> if natural selection retains the advantage, then natural selection has
>> to be random, also, since it depends on the random beneficial mutation
>> in order to select.
>
>Natural selection is not random.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
>I'm almost convinced we should suspend this conversation and go over
>precisely what evolution is. Let's keep going for the moment.
>
>> If a selection process will not occur unless a
>> random process occurs, then that selection process is also random.
>
>The first clause is false.
why? If a selection rides upon the happenstance of a random
beneficial mutation, isn't that selection as random and therefore as
unpredictable as the mutation itself? Please tell me where this is
false. Or maybe we are addressing two entirely different areas. I am
addressing predictability of a process. What are you referring to?
>
>> If
>> selection is random, then evolution is unpredictable, and if
>> unpredictable, then untestable. If untestable, then unscientific.
>
>You're making this up, and it shows. Please don't do that.
I am reasoning it through, not making it up. Explain to me how you
can predict what natural selection will do next, and I will accept the
correction.
> There are a
>number of accessible explanations for random mutation, natural selection,
>genetic drift, evolution, methodological naturalism -- whatever you'd
>care to learn about. But you have to be honest enough to ask for them,
>or at least ask if you're working with the correct definition.
I've been reading the evolutionary position here in TO for quite a few
years now and think I have a pretty good grasp of what your theory
says.
Please tell me what is wrong with the following line of reasoning:
Q. What are the processes that make a heritable trait selectable?
A. Those processes that produce heritable favorable traits worthy of
selection are random beneficial mutations and genetic drift (which has
no preferred direction=random).
Q. If the processes are random, then new traits are random. On that
basis, can you predict what random advantages will be retained through
natural selection?
A. No. You can only predict that natural selection may retain a new
advantage, but you cannot predict what that retained advantage will
be.
That is what I mean when I say that evolution is unpredictable,
therefore untestable, therefore unscientific.
Now I await your corrections.
snip>
>
>At this point, let me stop and answer the rest in a separate post.
On 10 Dec 2007 05:46:05 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:32:04 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
>> On 09 Dec 2007 03:50:11 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:35:15 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
><very large snip -- see other post>
>
>> the reason given for suffering and death makes a world of difference in
>> how we view our condition here on earth. If you view suffering and
>> death to be a result of sin, then you understand why it now exists,
>> where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. If you
>> view it to be the result of a mindless struggle for survival, then you
>> live without a future or a hope. So just because suffering and death now
>> exist does not mean that this condition points to only one source --
>> evolution.
>
>You're making a distinction between a theologically purposeful and
>theologically purposeless world. Evolution doesn't address this. It
>cannot.
>
>If you assume God created the earth, God went out of His way to make it
>look like evolution is not only correct, but pervasive. God also went
>out of His way to provide hope and purpose. The only conflict I'm seeing
>is if you have misunderstood evolution, the Bible, or both.
I've always taken exception to the attitude that imposes one's
understanding on someone else's creation, and insists that it was the
intention and motive of the creator of the item to make it look
exactly the way the observer understands it to be. It's not the fault
of a creator of an item if someone comes along and misinterprets what
he sees, and then blames the creator for making the item in such a way
as to fool the observer. This becomes all about "me and my
perspective governs the world" instead of "what is the perspective of
the creator?"
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The aspect of an unplanned, purposeless existence awaiting the chance
>>>> random mutation that might take a life form in some unknown
>>>> purposeless direction.
>>>
>>>As above, science studies evolution as if it were purposeless. This
>>>does not preclude a theological purpose.
>>
>> many students of biology and the other ologies have lost their way with
>> respect to the theological purpose, just by being exposed to the
>> authoritarian conclusion that we evolved without purpose or plan.
>
>Authoritarian? Not outside the old Soviet Union. The quickest, easiest
>way to fortune, fame, and tenure in academia is showing why the current
>received wisdom is wrong. It's common enough to be unremarkable. Of
>course, you have to have evidence, and scientists enjoy carving up people
>who don't have all their ducks in a row.
>
>Zoe, the reason creationists (in particular) lose their faith when they
>get to college is that they realize they've been lied to. The foundation
>of their faith makes naturalistic claims, and for the first time they're
>in an environment where people know more about the world than their
>parents and pastor did. The claims are falsified with piles and piles of
>evidence, and the natural reaction is to suspect everything else they had
>been told.
from my personal experience, there are reasons why students lose their
faith, and it is not because they felt they had been lied to (I am
becoming fairly certain that evolutionists have no other character
traits in their vocabulary). Students can be intimidated by the
authoritarian approach of the scientist who says, "our way or the
highway." Or the approach of the professor who says, "believe our
way, or I will not write you a favorable reference for your resume."
Or the peer pressure of those who refuse to think for themselves, who
mindlessly follow the party line in hopes of avoiding ridicule.
Whatever the catalyst, God gets put on the back burner and finally
ignored altogether. I've met people like this, so I'm not making this
up.
snip>
>
>> Evolutionists, on the other hand, use
>> the philosophy of evolution to say that God is not near....IF God even
>> exists at all.
>
>Not in my experience. Cite?
oh, dear, dear Garamond, I really don't have the time to search
through TO. If you read this forum long enough, you will come across
just such attitudes. I'm surprised you have not discovered such
comments yet.
>
>>>> The aspect of earthlings struggling on into the unknown, without a
>>>> future and without hope.
>>>
>>>Evolution says nothing about this, either.
>>
>> evolutionists, using the theory of evolution, say that the only future
>> open to all organisms is death...deal with it, they say.
>
>Cite?
you can either take my word for it or research it yourself. This is
most definitely an attitude among some found here in this newsgroup.
And those loudly voiced attitudes have an influence.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> A personal, caring, loving parent would never put their children
>>>> through this process, if they could choose a method of creating their
>>>> children.
>>>
>>>As someone recently quoted to me: "God's ways are above man's ways."
>>
>> right. And if God's ways, which are higher than man's ways, are
>> interpreted to be unloving ways, then you would be interpreting the ways
>> of earthly parents to be more loving than God's way, right?
>
>Why would I interpret God to be unloving?
well, if you think that leaving your child to struggle through life on
its own is loving, then I understand why you do not see that kind of
god as unloving.
snip>
>> on whose say-so do you think I have based my understanding of Genesis?
>
>Parents, pastor, other members of your congregation.
my understanding of Genesis comes from my personal reading of the
Bible.
>
>> And where did I say that I thought that Genesis promotes a vengeful,
>> sadistic God?
>
>I find a literal interpretation supports that. For example, God knew
>(having created them) that Adam and Eve would be tempted to eat of the
>tree of knowledge, and to insure that they did, he created the snake to
>make sure that it occurred to them. God then jump out with the Hebrew
>equivalent of "Gotcha" and banishes them.
except that is not the tone or understanding that I get from that
account. So I'm not ready to go to battle with God on the basis of
that version.
>
>Now that's a weak interpretation, but (as far as I can tell) it can't be
>dislodged using more literalism. This has consequences, notably:
>
><q>
>I can tell you that if I became convinced that the god
>of the universe were a sadistic, vengeful, and unloving god, I would
>do everything in my puny power to fight him, even if it meant my sure
>death in the process; much better to go down fighting than to live
>worshipping that kind of god.
></q>
>
>So if I agree with you that literalism is to be preferred, and that an
>unloving God is not to be worshiped, how am I to detect the error of my
>personal literal reading of Genesis?
it is an easy way out to dismiss these stories as nonliteral. But
with the dismissal goes the chance to think things through more
deeply, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a
little.
snip>
On 11 Dec 2007 02:26:04 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:34:37 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
>> On 09 Dec 2007 05:21:09 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:47:00 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
>>>> original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here,
>>>> is a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
>>>> singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
>>>> retains its integrity...
>>>
>>>Just so it doesn't get lost in the other thread: Could you give me your
>>>understanding of the word "deep" in Genesis 1:2? (It may show up as
>>>"waters" in your translation.
>>
>> in the Hebrew/English translation, it says, "...and darkness on the face
>> of the deep" immediately followed by "and the Spirit of God moving
>> gently on the face of the waters." In light of the two phrases "on the
>> face of" it seems reasonable to conclude that "deep" and "waters" are
>> one and the same.
>>
>> What do higher critics say "deep" means, please?
>
>Hey, look what I found!
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/bible.html
>
>I think we're not the first people to have this discussion..... anyway.
>
>Beginning with Sarna[1]:
><q>
>The Babylonian creation epic [Enuma Elish [2,3]] tells how, before the
>formation of heaven and earth, nothing existed except water. This primal
>generative element was identified with Apsu, the male personificaion of
>the primeval sweetwater ocean, and with his female associate Tiamat, the
>primordial saltwater ocean, represented as a ferocious
>monster. . . .After a fierce battle in which [Marduk] defeated the enemy
>forces and slew Tiamat, Marduk sliced the carcass of the monster in two
>and created of one half the firmament of heaven and of the other the
>foundation of the earth. . . .There is other evidence to indicate a
>knowledge of the Babylonian myth. We are told that when God began to
>create the heaven and the earth, darkness covered the surface of the deep
>(1:2). This latter word is the usual English translation of the Hebrew
>original Tehom, which is, in fact, the philological equivalent of Tiamat.
></q>
>
>Sarna spends then entire first chapter on the relationship between _Enuma
>Elish_ and the two creation narratives in Genesis. The above is only
>intended to pique your interest.
>
>Garrett[4] states:
><q>
>See [3] for examples of ancient creation myths. Incidental similarities
>to Genesis 1 are well known, but they do not make for true formal
>parallels, and the differences are far more profound. A useful
>discussion of similarities is by [5]. For a thorough and provocative
>challenge to the widely held assumption that a dragon/chaos mythin is
>behind Gen. 1:2, see [6].
></q>
>
>Finishing up with von Rad[7]:
><q>
>"Tohuwabohu" means the formless; the primeval waters over which darkness
>was superimposed characterizes the chaos materially as a watery primeval
>element, but at the same time gives a dimensional association: tehom
>("sea of chaos") is the cosmic abyss[8]. . . .In the last analysis, all
>these statements have their terminological origin in the mythologies of
>neighboring religions. (Tehom, "primeval flood," is unquestionably
>connected with the Babylonian Tiamat, that primeval dragon of chaos; bohu
>is probably related to Baau, the nocturnal mother goddess in Phoenician
>mythology.) The actual mythical meaning, however, has been long since
>lost in our text, as is clearly shown in the arranging of terms from
>quite different mythological circles. Therefore, we must reject even the
>assumption that the Priestly document necessarily had to fall back on
>strage and half mythological ideas to make clear the chaotic primeval
>state. The terms used in v. 2 are freed from every mythological context;
>in Israel they had long since become cosmological catchwords, which
>belonged to the inalienable requisite of Priestly learning.
></q>
>
>Obviously, none of the above invalidates divine inspiration. However, I
>do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. If the original
>translators into English had rendered Tehom as Neptune (and that's an
>awful translation for several reasons, but bear with me), then I think
>you'd have no trouble in concluding the passage was not to be taken
>literally. However, I think the translators tried to capture what was
>closer to the poetry of the text -- and I think "deep" is a wonderful
>choice -- with the understanding that it would *not* be taken literally.
>
>(I might be totally wrong here -- it would be interesting to track down
>when the knowledge that Tehom was part of Babylonian mythology entered
>into the Church. If this is a relatively late finding, the KJV
>translators may have thought Tehom simply implied "abyss". It shouldn't
>be hard to find this out, though.)
>
>Your thoughts?
I think there are at least two ways to approach the many accounts
found worldwide with regard to creation and/or the flood, not to
mention the pervasive use of the word "Sabbath" in cultures worldwide.
One way is to suggest that they all (Hebrews included) copied each
other's legends. Another way would be to suggest that there was an
original true event which got corrupted as time passed. And the fact
that certain accounts are so widespread would lend credence to the
idea that something worldwide had indeed occurred.
If the second option is chosen, how does one recognize which is the
original true account, of which the many variations are but a
reflection of the true? For me, it is by weighing any indicators of
authenticity that surround a particular account. The Bible has, imo,
these indicators of authenticity.
Back to you....
>
>One more thing: Going to scholar.google.com and searching on <Tiamat
>Genesis> brought up 1260 hits. If you see something there that looks
>interesting but can't get access to it, let me know.
>
>Garamond
>
>
>[1] Sarna, Nahum M., _Understanding Genesis_, Schoken, 1970. pgs 4-23.
>[2] Heidel, A. _The Babylonian Genesis_, Chicago, 1963.
>[3] Speiser, E. A., tr., 1969, Akkadian Myths and Epics, in Pritchard, J.
>B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [3rd
>ed.]: Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, p. 60-72.
>[4] Garrett, Duane. _Rethinking Genesis_, Baker House, 1991. pg. 192.
>[5] Lambert, W. G. "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis"
>Journal of Theological Studies 16: 287-300. 1965.
>[6] Tsumura, David Toshio. "The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and
>2: A Linguistic Investigation". Journal for the Study of the Old
>Testament, Supplement Series 83, 1989.
>[7] von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Westminster Press, 1956,
>pgs 47-48.
>[8] Jacob, Benno. _Das erste Buch der Tora, Genesis_ Berlin, 1934.
Rolf
"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8n66m3dmf3srntg65...@4ax.com...
> Garamond, I am combining your last three responses in this new thread
> in order to avoid tracking down the old thread any further. And I'll
> be snipping a lot for brevity. Forgive me, okay?
>
> So then....where were we in this delightful discussion of our
> differences.
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2007 02:39:20 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >So you're making the claim that there is no creative power in evolution.
> >I will absolutely agree that it cannot be detected, but that's far
> >different than proving its absence.
>
> flying pink elephants cannot be detected, but we cannot prove their
> absence, either.
>
> Come on now, isn't that a rather useless concession? Nobody cares if
> you can or cannot prove their absence. The fact that they cannot be
> detected is sufficient to live your life as if they do not
> exist....which matters not a whit. But to live one's life as if God's
> creative power does not exist is to suffer eternal loss.
>
Eternal loss, what is that? And what happens to the loss if "God's creative
power" is a fiction after all? Do you have evidence for his creative power,
or is your position "since we have no evidence that god does not exist I
chose to believe he exist because I want God to exist and I would be unhappy
if it should turn out that my concept of god was an illusion?"
What sets a life lived "as if God's creative power does exist" apart from a
life lived "as if God's
creative power does not exist?"
> snip>
>
> >> I'm not sure what exactly you are misunderstanding. I voluntarily
> >> choose to love and worship the God of the Bible because the record of
> >> His love towards earthlings has awakened a response of love within me.
> >
Loving the God of the bible? Yahweh, the warlord of the Jewish tribes? The
terrible one?
He was created by Moses, who commanded that they should stop worship of the
other gods. Thus, Moses had Divine command of his people. Obey God (me) and
all will be well - our master of warfare will ensure eternal happiness for
us and f**k our neighbours.
This loving god choses to kill every living thing on the planet except Noah
and his family + some animals. Isn't that cruelty and idiotic behaviour? He
knew darn well it was useless, man being created the way he is. If he wanted
man to behave like an angel, why not create him like an angel? But "in God's
image", hey - he is like God - cruel and loving.
Come on, we know there never was a worldwide flood; all our knowledge points
to the inescapable fact: the planet is 4.6 billion years old. Rejecting
science may be good religion but it does not get you to heaven.
Worldwide? Maybe in the minds of the writers, how the heck could
flatearthers 3000 years ago know anything about the entire planet?
> If the second option is chosen, how does one recognize which is the
> original true account, of which the many variations are but a
> reflection of the true? For me, it is by weighing any indicators of
> authenticity that surround a particular account. The Bible has, imo,
> these indicators of authenticity.
>
What indicators? If anything, it speaks loudly of being full of myths.
Garamond Lethe
to split apart again -- sorry). Thank you for your close reading of the
Dodd paper and for your other comments. I'm working on a full reply, but
wanted to address the comments specific to Genesis immediately. Also
putting them at the top of their own thread makes it easier for John and
whomever else might be interested to chime in.
[Zoe said]
>>> What do higher critics say "deep" means, please?
[Garamond said]
>>Obviously, none of the above invalidates divine inspiration. However, I
>>do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. If the
>>original translators into English had rendered Tehom as Neptune (and
>>that's an awful translation for several reasons, but bear with me), then
>>I think you'd have no trouble in concluding the passage was not to be
>>taken literally. However, I think the translators tried to capture what
>>was closer to the poetry of the text -- and I think "deep" is a
>>wonderful choice -- with the understanding that it would *not* be taken
>>literally.
<snip>
>>Your thoughts?
[Zoe said]
> I think there are at least two ways to approach the many accounts found
> worldwide with regard to creation and/or the flood, not to mention the
> pervasive use of the word "Sabbath" in cultures worldwide. One way is to
> suggest that they all (Hebrews included) copied each other's legends.
> Another way would be to suggest that there was an original true event
> which got corrupted as time passed. And the fact that certain accounts
> are so widespread would lend credence to the idea that something
> worldwide had indeed occurred.
>
> If the second option is chosen, how does one recognize which is the
> original true account, of which the many variations are but a reflection
> of the true? For me, it is by weighing any indicators of authenticity
> that surround a particular account. The Bible has, imo, these
> indicators of authenticity.
>
> Back to you....
I was trying (and failed) to ask a much narrower question: Should this
one particular word (Tehom/Tiamat) be given a literal interpretation?
As I understand it (and corrections are always welcome), there's no
support for thinking the author of this passage thought that Tiamat was a
real god. On the other hand, I assume there was a perfectly good word in
Hebrew for "oceans" that could have been used, if indeed that was the
literal state of the world at creation.
If the above is correct (and it might not be), then the only
interpretation remaining is a metaphorical one: the conditions at
creation were *like* those that are brought to mind by this Babylonian
word.
So let's look at what we've done: We've moved from an English
translation to the historical study needed to determine the original word
(as best we can tell), we've done further study to determine how that
word was used both in the Hebraic and surrounding cultures, and thus
we're closer to understanding the intent of the author of the text. This
is hard, inexact work. It's much easier to stay with one translation and
state certain parts are not open to anything other than a literal
interpretation. But the effort can be worth it, and I think it is here.
If you'd like to put forward a contrasting view supporting a literal
reading, I'd be happy to hear it.
Garamond
Rodjk #613
You cannot possibly think Zoe will learn anything, do you?
Rodjk #613
Dysdiadochokinesia
> in order to avoid tracking down the old thread any further. And I'll
> be snipping a lot for brevity. Forgive me, okay?
>
> So then....where were we in this delightful discussion of our
> differences.
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2007 02:39:20 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>So you're making the claim that there is no creative power in evolution.
>>I will absolutely agree that it cannot be detected, but that's far
>>different than proving its absence.
>
> flying pink elephants cannot be detected, but we cannot prove their
> absence, either.
>
> Come on now, isn't that a rather useless concession? Nobody cares if
> you can or cannot prove their absence. The fact that they cannot be
> detected is sufficient to live your life as if they do not
> exist....which matters not a whit. But to live one's life as if God's
> creative power does not exist is to suffer eternal loss.
>
No, living one's life "as if" some god's creative power doesn't exist is
exactly the same as to live one's life as if flying pink elephants don't
exist. In fact, there's really no difference between the postulated
pachyderm and your god in terms of measurable effects on one's life. So one
wonders what in the world you're talking about.
> snip>
>
>>> I'm not sure what exactly you are misunderstanding. I voluntarily
>>> choose to love and worship the God of the Bible because the record of
>>> His love towards earthlings has awakened a response of love within me.
>>
>>Job? The Egyptians? "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who
>>has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never
>>slept with a man." (Num 31:17)
>
> hold up. That last, when read in context, is a command from Moses,
> not God.
Ah, right. "Moses" only speaks for "god" when you like the results. Other
times, he's just a guy. Got it.
>
> The Israelites lived among societies that conducted their wars as we
> see in the Bible, according to the cultural mores of their time. Not
> everything Moses said was exactly what God wanted to say.
And of course, you know which times were which. Because an angel whispered
it in your ear, no doubt ::rolls eyes::
> Jesus, when
> he lived on earth, said of Moses' instructions, "It has been
> said....but I say unto you...." or "Moses, because of the hardness of
> your hearts suffered you to.....but from the beginning it was not
> so...." or "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye,
> and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you..."
>
> Finally, in Jesus, we are faced with a firsthand knowledge of what God
> is really like.
>
Sure we are. Sure. Except for when we hear about Jesus' "human failings"
which weren't god, or some blather you people use to explain away other
things you know are objectionable in the bible. Whatever.
>>
>>Have you read the OT straight through?
>
> I have read the OT many times, along with the New Testament writers
> who throw a floodlight on what God is really like.
They "throw a floodlight" on what they imagine god is like, and they're all
different. Imagine that.
> And by comparing
> text to text, I have come to terms with some of the darker moments in
> OT history.
>
> For instance, Zephaniah 3:17 (NKJV) depicts God as follows:
>
> "The Lord your God, in your midst, the mighty One, will save. He will
> rejoice over you with gladness; He will quiet you in His love; He will
> rejoice over you with singing."
>
> Yet there are accounts of God's power wiping out surrounding nations.
> How does that fit? Well, the way I see it is that a God Who rejoices
> over His children with singing is a God Who will protect His children
> at any cost. His children's enemies are His enemies, and He will do
> whatever it takes to defend them and protect them.
Right. So your god is a racist bigot. Nice.
I'm going to conclude that you're just full of crap right here and stop
embarassing you further.
Garamond Lethe
So far she's read ~100 pages of some very dry textual criticism and
Dodd's original (and very dense) work on reproductive isolation. Her
reading of the former is very close to what mine would have been as a
freshman honors student, and frankly she gave a closer reading to the
latter than I would have as an MS student. So I think she's doing fine.
Has she learned anything? You'd have to ask her -- the important
question to me is whether I'm learning anything, and I am. That's the
fun of hanging out here.
Rodjk #613
I am just saying: Look up Zoe's history here on T.O before you waste
too much time.
Rodjk #613
John Wilkins
Zoe is not dumb, but she's ill-equipped to deal with certain things (as
are we all). I think she's engaging here very well indeed, and I
wouldn't suggest that she's incapable of learning.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ocean of Nuance
Do you think she is intellectually honest?
sharon
John Wilkins
Not really, when it comes to her religion. But that doesn't make her
dumb.
Nic
A mixture, like the rest of us. It's a strange feeling - gossiping in
front of the person being gossiped about. Zoe uses a few terms that
make me suspect she's some kind of consultant, so nothing to worry
about.
Ocean of Nuance
No she is not dumb. I feel sorry for her. She is trapped in a web of
lies. I think she knows something is wrong. Her questions here
indicate that to me. She is afraid of where it is going and is trying
to salvage her life. It's a tough pill to realize you wasted your life
on a lie.
sharon
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > Ocean of Nuance <lizzardw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Wilkins wrote:
...
> >>> Zoe is not dumb, but she's ill-equipped to deal with certain things (as
> >>> are we all). I think she's engaging here very well indeed, and I
> >>> wouldn't suggest that she's incapable of learning.
> >> Do you think she is intellectually honest?
> >>
> > Not really, when it comes to her religion. But that doesn't make her
> > dumb.
>
> No she is not dumb. I feel sorry for her. She is trapped in a web of
> lies. I think she knows something is wrong. Her questions here
> indicate that to me. She is afraid of where it is going and is trying
> to salvage her life. It's a tough pill to realize you wasted your life
> on a lie.
Wel, you can always turn it to good use and become a philosopher...
Garamond Lethe
> Garamond, I am combining your last three responses in this new thread in
> order to avoid tracking down the old thread any further. And I'll be
> snipping a lot for brevity. Forgive me, okay?
And I've gone even further, addressing just a handful of your points at
length. I think we're closing in on a workable format, but let me know
if you find this awkward.
>
> So then....where were we in this delightful discussion of our
> differences.
I'm enjoying this -- I hope you are as well.
Taking this out of order:
> I've been reading the evolutionary position here in TO for quite a few
> years now and think I have a pretty good grasp of what your theory says.
>
> Please tell me what is wrong with the following line of reasoning:
>
> Q. What are the processes that make a heritable trait selectable? A.
> Those processes that produce heritable favorable traits worthy of
> selection are random beneficial mutations and genetic drift (which has
> no preferred direction=random).
This is incorrect.
All heritable traits are selectable. Selection (tends to) retain
beneficial changes, (tends to) remove negative changes, and has no
overall tendency towards neutral changes.
> Q. If the processes are random, then new traits are random.
This is incorrect.
I'm getting the impression you've confused "random" with
"unconstrained". The two are very different concepts.
At the level of individual mutations, there isn't any such thing as a
"new trait". Existing traits will be modified slightly -- sometimes this
is slightly beneficial or negative, sometimes it's lethal, and most of
the time it's just neutral. Over time, successive mutations can cause
what we'd classify as a new trait, but this never happens within a single
generation.
> On that
> basis, can you predict what random advantages will be retained through
> natural selection?
> A. No. You can only predict that natural selection may retain a new
> advantage, but you cannot predict what that retained advantage will be.
This is incorrect.
Show me an organism's predators and parasites and I'll tell you what the
retained advantages will be.
This is easiest to see in drug resistance. Say we apply a new drug to a
population of malaria. If the population is large enough, some members
will be sufficiently different that they'll survive -- they have some
natural resistance to the drug. They might not do well, their
reproductive efficiency may drop, and there might not be enough of them
to make you sick, but they're still around.
The populations will continue to mutate as usual. Individuals whose
mutation causes them to lose the resistance will be promptly weeded out
of the population. However, there will be an occasional mutation that
further increases resistance. That will be selected for and, after a
sufficient number of generations have passed, most of the population will
be highly resistant.
In this case, only those traits that deal with the drug will be relevant
-- indeed, such traits might have been actively harmful in a different
environment.
> That is what I mean when I say that evolution is unpredictable,
> therefore untestable, therefore unscientific.
The fact that some aspects of evolution are treated as though they are
random is no bar to it being useful -- statistics handles this problem
extraordinarily well. What is unpredictably random at the level of a
single gene for a single individual is entirely tractable when dealing
with a population over generations.
> Now I await your corrections.
I hope this has convinced you that your idea of evolution might not be
correct. As always, there's no need to take my word for it. The t.o.
faq is easy to find:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
and has references at the end.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> What is lacking, (for me, anyway) is demonstration of any phenotypical
> changes that affect morphology. It is the differences in morphology
> that cause species to be classified as belonging to one genus or
> another. And I would like to see evidence for these changes. This
> paper does not address that.
Thanks for giving the Dodd paper such a close reading. Reproductive
isolation is a better determinant for speciation than morphology (see the
wikipedia article).
I'm not sure what you're looking for, so rather than tossing articles
your way, let me tell you how I go about searching for them.
scholar.google.com is usually a good place to start, and after a couple
of tries I hit on <evolution "change in morphology">. Hopefully, most of
the abstracts will be available and you can find something that looks
interesting. As always, I'm happy to run down the complete text of the
articles if needed.
And there's also this, of course:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> As to the article itself, it is written with some ambiguity which left
> me confused. But that's okay, I guess, since I'm sure it wasn't written
> for the layperson. For instance, Dodd states that four populations were
> reared on a starch-based medium and four were reared on a maltose-based
> mediium, but in her discussion at the end, she says, "... all tests were
> performed using flies that had been reared on a common medium and had
> experienced neither starch nor maltose."
Yeah, that could have been clearer. What they did was raise the final
generation on the original "common medium". This insured that whatever
differences there were came from genetics, not the immediate environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> pity the poor man on the street who does not have access to all this
>>> higher criticism. Must he come to the scholar in order to experience
>>> salvation? Definitely not.
>>
>>Must he become a scholar before making public claims about the correct
>>interpretation of scripture? Probably a good idea.
>
> so, again, only the scholar can make public claims about salvation
> (which is what the scriptures are about)? If this is your position, I
> think you would be competing with the pope for that position of
> authority.
The pope used to -- and still might, I don't know -- claim
infallibility. I make no such claim.
If there's one virtue that where scientists consistently excel, it's
humility. I'm writing a dissertation. This process takes years. Not
too many months ago, I thought things were pretty well mapped out and I
was making good progress. One experiment later and a third of that
dissertation evaporated. The world was more complicated than I had
anticipated, and I had a lot more work in front of me.
This happens to everyone, sometimes over and over again. All knowledge
really is tentative.
So, am I certain that my interpretation of Genesis is correct? Not at
all. But that also means that I find certainty in others much less
persuasive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Have you read the OT straight through?
>
> I have read the OT many times,
<grin> I'm pleased.
> along with the New Testament writers who
> throw a floodlight on what God is really like. And by comparing text to
> text, I have come to terms with some of the darker moments in OT
> history.
<snip>
> I have read the passages and resolved them for myself, but I can
> understand why you would want to make them nonliteral. It's an easy way
> out of the dilemma.
Hmmmm.... there's a dilemma imposed by the literal interpretation in it's
seeming contradiction to evolution, if that's the dilemma you're speaking
of. I'm not sure if you mean that or if you're calling the problem of
determining the best interpretation itself a dilemma. Anyway....
> But I submit that the Bible interprets itself.
Now that's what *I* would call taking the easy way out.
Both historically and in my own experience I've seen this attitude
towards interpretation lead to mutually exclusive conclusions. This
isn't unexpected, but each side feels they're obviously, incontrovertibly
right. This makes me suspicious that both sides have it wrong.
The kind of interpretation I'm favoring is one where "I don't know" and
"It isn't clear" replaces certainty. So, for example, it's seems
plausible to me that Tiamat had been reduced to a metaphorical
cosmological term in Gen. 1:2, but now I'm left with the problem of
figuring out what the metaphor means. This is good -- I've learned
something and that's replaced a bit of certainty with uncertainty. It's
harder to live with the uncertainty, of course, but I think it's more
honest and eventually more fulfilling. I certainly wouldn't characterize
it as the easier way out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Zoe, the reason creationists (in particular) lose their faith when they
>>get to college is that they realize they've been lied to. The
>>foundation of their faith makes naturalistic claims, and for the first
>>time they're in an environment where people know more about the world
>>than their parents and pastor did. The claims are falsified with piles
>>and piles of evidence, and the natural reaction is to suspect everything
>>else they had been told.
>
> from my personal experience, there are reasons why students lose their
> faith, and it is not because they felt they had been lied to (I am
> becoming fairly certain that evolutionists have no other character
> traits in their vocabulary). Students can be intimidated by the
> authoritarian approach of the scientist who says, "our way or the
> highway." Or the approach of the professor who says, "believe our way,
> or I will not write you a favorable reference for your resume." Or the
> peer pressure of those who refuse to think for themselves, who
> mindlessly follow the party line in hopes of avoiding ridicule. Whatever
> the catalyst, God gets put on the back burner and finally ignored
> altogether. I've met people like this, so I'm not making this up.
My educational experience has been entirely unlike this -- and I'm
sitting here grinning reliving several happy memories of a few of my more
confrontational moments.
And it's late, so I think I'll leave it at that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If there were any other points that you wanted me to address, please put
them into your reply.
Best,
Garamond
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>
I don't know. Why is a Babylonian term being used to understand a
Hebrew term? I am not versed in philology so would you kindly explain
why?
Meanwhile, I will attempt to explain my perspective, fully expecting
correction if I err.
I would not look at how a word is used in another country (say,
France) in order to understand the meaning of a word in the English
language. And I'm not talking about the origin of a word now, but the
common usage of a word within the context of a particular community.
Neither am I talking about the varied meanings that can be given a
word, as applied by translators.
It makes more sense to me to understand a word by seeing how it is
used within the same language, rather than going to another language
to determine its meaning. I think I would get a more accurate meaning
of a word by studying how that word is used by the same writer or
within the same community of writers. They would best know what they
mean when they use a word.
Also, if "deep" is being understood nonliterally to refer to chaos,
then what does "earth" mean in a nonliteral sense? And what is the
nonliteral meaning of "void" or "form" or even "God"? Or are we
making only certain words nonliteral? I do think God established
order upon chaos, but I'm not sure this particular verse is the one
for that. Maybe it is, but if it is, then we'd need the nonliteral
interpretation of the surrounding words, too.
So, to sum up (or maybe that's reiterate) the way I've understood
scripture is by letting writers from the same community expand on each
other's writings. That's what I mean by the Bible interprets itself.
We've come to look at the Bible as a single book and therefore feel
the need for outside commentary. But the Bible is actually a
compilation of different writings -- commentaries, if you will -- so
that it should be possible to get the most accurate understanding of
terms used by cross-referencing within these commentaries.
As to waters, the writer of that first verse in Genesis appears to
explain himself, imo, when he parallels "face of the deep" and "face
of the waters" followed by "dividing the waters" and next "separating
the waters from dry land."
>As I understand it (and corrections are always welcome), there's no
>support for thinking the author of this passage thought that Tiamat was a
>real god. On the other hand, I assume there was a perfectly good word in
>Hebrew for "oceans" that could have been used, if indeed that was the
>literal state of the world at creation.
an ocean is identified within the context of land. In the beginning,
if taken literally, there was only water, no land, so I don't think
that the Hebrew word for "oceans" whatever that term is, would have
been used. Actually, so far, I've not come across a translation that
uses the word "oceans". "Sea" is used, always in the context of land.
It makes sense to me that waters without the context of land would
aptly be called "waters" or deep waters, or merely "deep."
>
>If the above is correct (and it might not be), then the only
>interpretation remaining is a metaphorical one: the conditions at
>creation were *like* those that are brought to mind by this Babylonian
>word.
I hope, by now, you have answered my query as to why one would try to
view one community's perspective through the perspective of another
community. I know I would be very upset if someone were to take a
word from my writing and interpreted it via someone else's writing,
instead of reading further into my own writing to get my true meaning.
>So let's look at what we've done: We've moved from an English
>translation to the historical study needed to determine the original word
>(as best we can tell), we've done further study to determine how that
>word was used both in the Hebraic and surrounding cultures, and thus
>we're closer to understanding the intent of the author of the text. This
>is hard, inexact work. It's much easier to stay with one translation and
>state certain parts are not open to anything other than a literal
>interpretation. But the effort can be worth it, and I think it is here.
>
>If you'd like to put forward a contrasting view supporting a literal
>reading, I'd be happy to hear it.
I have no scholarly reviews to offer you. But if my reasoning above
makes sense, why reject it?
Zoe
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:40:34 -0500, Zoe wrote:
snip>
>
>Taking this out of order:
>
>> I've been reading the evolutionary position here in TO for quite a few
>> years now and think I have a pretty good grasp of what your theory says.
>>
>> Please tell me what is wrong with the following line of reasoning:
>>
>> Q. What are the processes that make a heritable trait selectable? A.
>> Those processes that produce heritable favorable traits worthy of
>> selection are random beneficial mutations and genetic drift (which has
>> no preferred direction=random).
>
>This is incorrect.
>
>All heritable traits are selectable. Selection (tends to) retain
>beneficial changes, (tends to) remove negative changes, and has no
>overall tendency towards neutral changes.
that was a badly worded question. Let me try again.
Q. What are the processes that are claimed to produce new beneficial
inheritable traits?
A. Those processes that are claimed to produce new beneficial
inheritable traits are random beneficial mutations and genetic drift.
>> Q. If the processes are random, then new traits are random.
>
>This is incorrect.
>
>I'm getting the impression you've confused "random" with
>"unconstrained". The two are very different concepts.
>At the level of individual mutations, there isn't any such thing as a
>"new trait". Existing traits will be modified slightly -- sometimes this
>is slightly beneficial or negative, sometimes it's lethal, and most of
>the time it's just neutral. Over time, successive mutations can cause
>what we'd classify as a new trait, but this never happens within a single
>generation.
well, I did use the word "processes," which would eliminate the
individual mutation as my meaning. Can scientists predict what these
new traits will be?
>
>
>> On that
>> basis, can you predict what random advantages will be retained through
>> natural selection?
>> A. No. You can only predict that natural selection may retain a new
>> advantage, but you cannot predict what that retained advantage will be.
>
>This is incorrect.
>
>Show me an organism's predators and parasites and I'll tell you what the
>retained advantages will be.
what are the retained advantages of antibiotic-resistant bacteria such
that the claim can be made that new morphologic features are
developing? What is the evidence that developing changes are taking
the bacterium away from its species into an entirely new genus? When
is a population no longer recognized as bacteria but as organisms
with, say, nucleated cells? So far, what is being described is
adaptation. Adaptation is not thought to be the same as speciation, I
hope.
>
>This is easiest to see in drug resistance. Say we apply a new drug to a
>population of malaria. If the population is large enough, some members
>will be sufficiently different that they'll survive -- they have some
>natural resistance to the drug. They might not do well, their
>reproductive efficiency may drop, and there might not be enough of them
>to make you sick, but they're still around.
>
>The populations will continue to mutate as usual. Individuals whose
>mutation causes them to lose the resistance will be promptly weeded out
>of the population. However, there will be an occasional mutation that
>further increases resistance. That will be selected for and, after a
>sufficient number of generations have passed, most of the population will
>be highly resistant.
>
>In this case, only those traits that deal with the drug will be relevant
>-- indeed, such traits might have been actively harmful in a different
>environment.
actually, the way I view this is not that some bacteria have developed
a new mutation that allows them to deal with drugs, but that there are
varying degrees of healthiness that allow for effective resistance to
negative influences in the environment. The healthier the organism,
the more able it is to adapt and deal with its environment. "Healthy"
here refers to an organism whose immune system's integrity is not
compromised by preceding external conditions. As a result, the
offspring of healthier parents will also be healthier than offspring
of parents who have weaker immune systems, and the healthier organisms
are better able to defend against negative influences, i.e.,
antibiotics, and pass on this increasing ability to defend to their
offspring.
>
>> That is what I mean when I say that evolution is unpredictable,
>> therefore untestable, therefore unscientific.
>
>The fact that some aspects of evolution are treated as though they are
>random is no bar to it being useful -- statistics handles this problem
>extraordinarily well. What is unpredictably random at the level of a
>single gene for a single individual is entirely tractable when dealing
>with a population over generations.
so can you predict what our present life forms will morph into? Can
you predict what natural selection will produce next? Can you predict
what an organism will evolve into next? Takes millions of years, you
say? Then evolution is not observable, not testable, not predictable,
and therefore, not scientific....imo.
>
>> Now I await your corrections.
>
>I hope this has convinced you that your idea of evolution might not be
>correct. As always, there's no need to take my word for it. The t.o.
>faq is easy to find:
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
>
>and has references at the end.
I think you misunderstood my questions.
ahhh, now that makes sense. Thanks.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>> pity the poor man on the street who does not have access to all this
>>>> higher criticism. Must he come to the scholar in order to experience
>>>> salvation? Definitely not.
>>>
>>>Must he become a scholar before making public claims about the correct
>>>interpretation of scripture? Probably a good idea.
>>
>> so, again, only the scholar can make public claims about salvation
>> (which is what the scriptures are about)? If this is your position, I
>> think you would be competing with the pope for that position of
>> authority.
>
>The pope used to -- and still might, I don't know -- claim
>infallibility. I make no such claim.
>
>If there's one virtue that where scientists consistently excel, it's
>humility.
well, you are the first humble scientist that I have met anywhere.
Certainly the only one I've come across here in TO.
> I'm writing a dissertation. This process takes years. Not
>too many months ago, I thought things were pretty well mapped out and I
>was making good progress. One experiment later and a third of that
>dissertation evaporated. The world was more complicated than I had
>anticipated, and I had a lot more work in front of me.
what is your present dissertation about? And what was your last
dissertation about? You don't have to answer, of course. I'm just
curious.
>
>This happens to everyone, sometimes over and over again. All knowledge
>really is tentative.
>
>So, am I certain that my interpretation of Genesis is correct? Not at
>all. But that also means that I find certainty in others much less
>persuasive.
so far these higher critics seem very certain of their position. And
if you want to find the highest degree of certainty anywhere, read
this forum. All evolutionists here appear to be very certain that
they are correct and that any positions that challenge evolution, are
dead wrong.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
snip>
>
>> I have read the passages and resolved them for myself, but I can
>> understand why you would want to make them nonliteral. It's an easy way
>> out of the dilemma.
>
>Hmmmm.... there's a dilemma imposed by the literal interpretation in it's
>seeming contradiction to evolution, if that's the dilemma you're speaking
>of. I'm not sure if you mean that or if you're calling the problem of
>determining the best interpretation itself a dilemma. Anyway....
I am referring to the dilemma of a God who is painted as harsh in some
parts of the Old Testament and as a loving God elsewhere in the Old
and New Testament writings.
>
>> But I submit that the Bible interprets itself.
>
>Now that's what *I* would call taking the easy way out.
>
>Both historically and in my own experience I've seen this attitude
>towards interpretation lead to mutually exclusive conclusions. This
>isn't unexpected, but each side feels they're obviously, incontrovertibly
>right. This makes me suspicious that both sides have it wrong.
to which "sides" are you referring? The side of those who interpret
scripture using one set of commentaries or the side of those using
another set of commentaries? I hope I don't have a side because I
like to let the scriptures interpret themselves. As I do for any
other writing.
If a writer uses the word "blossom" and the context is that of
"thrive" or "flourish," i.e., "Little Johnny began to blossom under
the warmth of their approval," I don't go outside of the writer's
contextual meaning and insist that since "blossom" is used elsewhere
to mean a literal flower or bloom that therefore the writer meant to
say that "Little Johnny was a flower." That is what I mean by letting
scripture interpret itself. The conclusions will be more accurate if
we allow the writer to explain himself.
So if the writer says, "darkness was on the FACE of the deep," and in
the very next breath says, "and the Spirit moved upon the FACE of the
waters," his meaning seems clear to me because he has tied the two
together. I don't need to go to Babylonian literature to see what
they mean when they use the concept of "deep." Not when the original
writer has made it clear.
>
>The kind of interpretation I'm favoring is one where "I don't know" and
>"It isn't clear" replaces certainty. So, for example, it's seems
>plausible to me that Tiamat had been reduced to a metaphorical
>cosmological term in Gen. 1:2, but now I'm left with the problem of
>figuring out what the metaphor means. This is good -- I've learned
>something and that's replaced a bit of certainty with uncertainty. It's
>harder to live with the uncertainty, of course, but I think it's more
>honest and eventually more fulfilling. I certainly wouldn't characterize
>it as the easier way out.
okay, I accept your view on that. And if I've given the impression
that I am certain about this, let me clarify that I am only giving
what makes sense to me, and I am open to anything else that makes
sense to me. So far, however, it doesn't make sense to me to try to
read one community's perspective through the perspective of an
entirely different community. I'd prefer to let a writer explain
himself through his own writings or through his own community of
writers.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
snip>
Garamond Lethe
> On 16 Dec 2007 04:00:25 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:40:34 -0500, Zoe wrote:
<snip>
> that was a badly worded question. Let me try again.
>
> Q. What are the processes that are claimed to produce new beneficial
> inheritable traits?
>
> A. Those processes that are claimed to produce new beneficial
> inheritable traits are random beneficial mutations and genetic drift.
Mostly right. There are a couple of other mechanisms as well, and all of
them can also produce neutral, detrimental, and lethal changes.
>
>>> Q. If the processes are random, then new traits are random.
>>
>>This is incorrect.
>>
>>I'm getting the impression you've confused "random" with
>>"unconstrained". The two are very different concepts.
>
>>At the level of individual mutations, there isn't any such thing as a
>>"new trait". Existing traits will be modified slightly -- sometimes
>>this is slightly beneficial or negative, sometimes it's lethal, and most
>>of the time it's just neutral. Over time, successive mutations can
>>cause what we'd classify as a new trait, but this never happens within a
>>single generation.
>
> well, I did use the word "processes," which would eliminate the
> individual mutation as my meaning.
Ah, that wasn't clear.
> Can scientists predict what these
> new traits will be?
Much like scientists can predict the weather -- if you looking at large
populations over the short term, then yes. The more specific and longer
term you go, the worse the predictions get.
>>> On that
>>> basis, can you predict what random advantages will be retained through
>>> natural selection?
>>> A. No. You can only predict that natural selection may retain a new
>>> advantage, but you cannot predict what that retained advantage will
>>> be.
>>
>>This is incorrect.
>>
>>Show me an organism's predators and parasites and I'll tell you what the
>>retained advantages will be.
>
> what are the retained advantages of antibiotic-resistant bacteria such
> that the claim can be made that new morphologic features are developing?
Not my field, but as an example: an enzyme might be modified so that it
interferes with the functioning of the drug.
> What is the evidence that developing changes are taking the bacterium
> away from its species into an entirely new genus?
As bacteria reproduce asexually, one has to use something other than
reproductive isolation for classification.
Would you like some help looking up the answer?
> When is a population
> no longer recognized as bacteria but as organisms with, say, nucleated
> cells?
There's a continuum across all of life. To the extent that
classifications help us understand life, they're useful. I have no idea
how this particular classification is made. Again, would you like some
help finding out?
> So far, what is being described is adaptation. Adaptation is
> not thought to be the same as speciation, I hope.
The two are orthogonal. A species can change (adapt) radically over
time, yet no members of any given generation are reproductively
isolated.
>>
>>This is easiest to see in drug resistance. Say we apply a new drug to a
>>population of malaria. If the population is large enough, some members
>>will be sufficiently different that they'll survive -- they have some
>>natural resistance to the drug. They might not do well, their
>>reproductive efficiency may drop, and there might not be enough of them
>>to make you sick, but they're still around.
>>
>>The populations will continue to mutate as usual. Individuals whose
>>mutation causes them to lose the resistance will be promptly weeded out
>>of the population. However, there will be an occasional mutation that
>>further increases resistance. That will be selected for and, after a
>>sufficient number of generations have passed, most of the population
>>will be highly resistant.
>>
>>In this case, only those traits that deal with the drug will be relevant
>>-- indeed, such traits might have been actively harmful in a different
>>environment.
>
> actually, the way I view this is not that some bacteria have developed a
> new mutation that allows them to deal with drugs, but that there are
> varying degrees of healthiness that allow for effective resistance to
> negative influences in the environment.
The "mutation ... to deal with drugs" is usually not an all-or-nothing
proposition.
> The healthier the organism, the
> more able it is to adapt and deal with its environment.
In this case, the drug is part of the environment for the malaria.
> "Healthy" here
> refers to an organism whose immune system's integrity is not compromised
> by preceding external conditions.
Again, I think health is better defined on a continuum.
> As a result, the offspring of
> healthier parents will also be healthier than offspring of parents who
> have weaker immune systems, and the healthier organisms are better able
> to defend against negative influences, i.e., antibiotics, and pass on
> this increasing ability to defend to their offspring.
I think you're conflating "health" and "fitness" -- not difficult to do.
In an environment with lots of food and few predators, even the least fit
organisms can be healthy and reproductively successful. And where
competition is the most fierce and the environment is harshest, the most
fit may be healthy only in comparison to those who are less fit (who are
dead).
>
>
>>> That is what I mean when I say that evolution is unpredictable,
>>> therefore untestable, therefore unscientific.
>>
>>The fact that some aspects of evolution are treated as though they are
>>random is no bar to it being useful -- statistics handles this problem
>>extraordinarily well. What is unpredictably random at the level of a
>>single gene for a single individual is entirely tractable when dealing
>>with a population over generations.
>
> so can you predict what our present life forms will morph into?
Yes.
> Can you
> predict what natural selection will produce next?
Yup.
> Can you predict what
> an organism will evolve into next?
Sure.
> Takes millions of years, you say?
The Dodd paper you read took 8 generations over 1 year.
> Then evolution is not observable,
I think I remember posting a link to a t.o. faq that detailed dozens of
observed instances of speciation. Evolution itself is so commonplace
that you can observe it happening just by signing up for a good
university biology class that has a lab section.
> not testable,
Well, evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies over
time. Assuming you can measure those frequencies, and you do so over
time, then it can be tested. Unsurprisingly, it works.
> not predictable,
Because we're able to predict evolution, we can design sane drug delivery
policies for malaria. Because we're able to predict evolution, we can
develop much more effective chemotherapy treatments.
> and
> therefore, not scientific....imo.
Zoe, you're smarter than this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
And if you don't want to be caught dead visiting talkorigins.org, then
check out a biology textbook from your library and keep renewing it until
you've pounded your way through it. Harvey Lodish's _Molecular Cell
Biology_ might be a good place to start, although since you've got plenty
of experts right close, you might want to ask for the group opinion.
If you want examples of observed morophological changes, then head on
over to scholar.google.com and start looking. If you need help, then
ask. Here's one to get you started:
Alexander V. Badyaev, Kerry R. Foresman.
"Extreme environmental change and evolution: stress-induced morphological
variation is strongly concordant with patterns of evolutionary divergence
in shrew mandibles"
Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, Volume 267, Number
1441/February 22, 2000.
<q>
Morphological structures often consist of simpler traits which can be
viewed as either integrated (e.g. correlated due to functional
interdependency) or non-integrated (e.g. functionally independent)
traits. The combination of a long-term stabilizing selection on the
entire structure with a short-term directional selection on an adaptively
important subset of traits should result in long historical persistence
of integrated functional complexes, with environmentally induced
variation and macroevolutionary change confined mostly to non-integrated
traits. We experimentally subjected populations of three closely related
species of Sorex shrews to environmental stress. As predicted, we found
that most of the variation in shrew mandibular shape was localized
between rather than within the functional complexes; the patterns of
integration did not change between the species. The stress-induced
variation was confined to non-integrated traits and was highly concordant
with the patterns of evolutionary change - species differed in the same
set of non-integrated traits which were most sensitive to stress within
each species. We suggest that low environmental and genetic canalization
of non-integrated traits may have caused these traits to be most
sensitive not only to the environmental but also to genetic perturbations
associated with stress. The congruence of stress-induced and between-
species patterns of variation in non-integrated traits suggests that
stress-induced variation in these traits may play an important role in
species divergence.
</q>
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/n3u8qrj30y7ffrcq/fulltext.pdf
From the abstract alone I think you'll find a prediction, observation,
and measurement of evolution sufficient to cause morphological change.
It was on the first page of my search for <"morphological change"
evolution>. There are 10k more hits where that came from.
>>> Now I await your corrections.
>>
>>I hope this has convinced you that your idea of evolution might not be
>>correct. As always, there's no need to take my word for it. The t.o.
>>faq is easy to find:
>>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
>>
>>and has references at the end.
>
> I think you misunderstood my questions.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>>> pity the poor man on the street who does not have access to all this
>>>>> higher criticism. Must he come to the scholar in order to
>>>>> experience salvation? Definitely not.
>>>>
>>>>Must he become a scholar before making public claims about the correct
>>>>interpretation of scripture? Probably a good idea.
>>>
>>> so, again, only the scholar can make public claims about salvation
>>> (which is what the scriptures are about)? If this is your position, I
>>> think you would be competing with the pope for that position of
>>> authority.
>>
>>The pope used to -- and still might, I don't know -- claim
>>infallibility. I make no such claim.
>>
>>If there's one virtue that where scientists consistently excel, it's
>>humility.
>
> well, you are the first humble scientist that I have met anywhere.
> Certainly the only one I've come across here in TO.
Nah. They've all had experiments go bad, hypothesis blow up, etc. All
you need to do to get them to sit down and shut up is present them with
data.
>
>> I'm writing a dissertation. This process takes years. Not
>>too many months ago, I thought things were pretty well mapped out and I
>>was making good progress. One experiment later and a third of that
>>dissertation evaporated. The world was more complicated than I had
>>anticipated, and I had a lot more work in front of me.
>
> what is your present dissertation about? And what was your last
> dissertation about? You don't have to answer, of course. I'm just
> curious.
It's the same one -- power-aware supercomputing. The really big iron
(>100,000 processors in one machine) can take over a million dollars a
month in electricity to keep running. I've come up with a couple of
techniques to shave a few percentage points off of that. I get to play
with some of the fastest machines on the planet, and that's pretty fun.
>>
>>This happens to everyone, sometimes over and over again. All knowledge
>>really is tentative.
>>
>>So, am I certain that my interpretation of Genesis is correct? Not at
>>all. But that also means that I find certainty in others much less
>>persuasive.
>
> so far these higher critics seem very certain of their position. And if
> you want to find the highest degree of certainty anywhere, read this
> forum. All evolutionists here appear to be very certain that they are
> correct and that any positions that challenge evolution, are dead
> wrong.
I disagree -- it's just those positions that don't bring any new data to
the table, or don't provide a new theory that has more explanatory or
predictive power. If you came up with a theory that explained everything
evolution explains and makes better predictions, everybody here would be
lining up to polish your Nobel.
Pro/anti slavery before and during the Civil War (and elsewhere).
Pro/anti homosexuality.
Pro/anti women's rights.
Pro/anti divine rights of kings.
Pro/anti antisemitism.
Pro/anti whatever war we happen to be involved in at the moment.
All used the same Bible and the same commentaries and reached exactly the
conclusions they started with. (Yes, there were probably a few
exception, but they're very, very rare.)
>
> If a writer uses the word "blossom" and the context is that of "thrive"
> or "flourish," i.e., "Little Johnny began to blossom under the warmth of
> their approval," I don't go outside of the writer's contextual meaning
> and insist that since "blossom" is used elsewhere to mean a literal
> flower or bloom that therefore the writer meant to say that "Little
> Johnny was a flower." That is what I mean by letting scripture
> interpret itself. The conclusions will be more accurate if we allow the
> writer to explain himself.
Of course.
>
> So if the writer says, "darkness was on the FACE of the deep," and in
> the very next breath says, "and the Spirit moved upon the FACE of the
> waters," his meaning seems clear to me because he has tied the two
> together. I don't need to go to Babylonian literature to see what they
> mean when they use the concept of "deep." Not when the original writer
> has made it clear.
But the original writer didn't say "deep". He used the proper name of a
Babylonian creation god. If what he meant was "deep", then that's a
metaphorical interpretation.
>
>
>>The kind of interpretation I'm favoring is one where "I don't know" and
>>"It isn't clear" replaces certainty. So, for example, it's seems
>>plausible to me that Tiamat had been reduced to a metaphorical
>>cosmological term in Gen. 1:2, but now I'm left with the problem of
>>figuring out what the metaphor means. This is good -- I've learned
>>something and that's replaced a bit of certainty with uncertainty. It's
>>harder to live with the uncertainty, of course, but I think it's more
>>honest and eventually more fulfilling. I certainly wouldn't
>>characterize it as the easier way out.
>
> okay, I accept your view on that. And if I've given the impression that
> I am certain about this, let me clarify that I am only giving what makes
> sense to me, and I am open to anything else that makes sense to me. So
> far, however, it doesn't make sense to me to try to read one community's
> perspective through the perspective of an entirely different community.
> I'd prefer to let a writer explain himself through his own writings or
> through his own community of writers.
Cool.
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> snip>
Garamond Lethe
From wikipedia, fount of all knowledge....
<q>
"Tehom" is a cognate of the Babylonian Tiamat, the monstrous mother of
the gods. In the bible it is treated as proper name, always being used
without a definite article.
</q> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehwom
And Miriam Webster's take on cognate is:
<q>
of a word or morpheme : related by derivation, borrowing, or descent
</q> http://tinyurl.com/yo5zbz
>
> Meanwhile, I will attempt to explain my perspective, fully expecting
> correction if I err.
;-)
>
> I would not look at how a word is used in another country (say, France)
> in order to understand the meaning of a word in the English language.
> And I'm not talking about the origin of a word now, but the common usage
> of a word within the context of a particular community. Neither am I
> talking about the varied meanings that can be given a word, as applied
> by translators.
>
> It makes more sense to me to understand a word by seeing how it is used
> within the same language, rather than going to another language to
> determine its meaning. I think I would get a more accurate meaning of a
> word by studying how that word is used by the same writer or within the
> same community of writers. They would best know what they mean when
> they use a word.
No disagreement here.
>
> Also, if "deep" is being understood nonliterally to refer to chaos, then
> what does "earth" mean in a nonliteral sense? And what is the
> nonliteral meaning of "void" or "form" or even "God"? Or are we making
> only certain words nonliteral? I do think God established order upon
> chaos, but I'm not sure this particular verse is the one for that.
> Maybe it is, but if it is, then we'd need the nonliteral interpretation
> of the surrounding words, too.
All excellent points, and I hope to (eventually) cover them.
>
> So, to sum up (or maybe that's reiterate) the way I've understood
> scripture is by letting writers from the same community expand on each
> other's writings. That's what I mean by the Bible interprets itself.
But my point is the translation you're reading is not faithful to the
words carefully chosen by the author.
> We've come to look at the Bible as a single book and therefore feel the
> need for outside commentary. But the Bible is actually a compilation of
> different writings -- commentaries, if you will -- so that it should be
> possible to get the most accurate understanding of terms used by
> cross-referencing within these commentaries.
But not if the translation is masking the original language.
>
> As to waters, the writer of that first verse in Genesis appears to
> explain himself, imo, when he parallels "face of the deep" and "face of
> the waters" followed by "dividing the waters" and next "separating the
> waters from dry land."
>
>>As I understand it (and corrections are always welcome), there's no
>>support for thinking the author of this passage thought that Tiamat was
>>a real god. On the other hand, I assume there was a perfectly good word
>>in Hebrew for "oceans" that could have been used, if indeed that was the
>>literal state of the world at creation.
>
> an ocean is identified within the context of land. In the beginning, if
> taken literally, there was only water, no land, so I don't think that
> the Hebrew word for "oceans" whatever that term is, would have been
> used. Actually, so far, I've not come across a translation that uses
> the word "oceans". "Sea" is used, always in the context of land. It
> makes sense to me that waters without the context of land would aptly be
> called "waters" or deep waters, or merely "deep."
>
>
>>If the above is correct (and it might not be), then the only
>>interpretation remaining is a metaphorical one: the conditions at
>>creation were *like* those that are brought to mind by this Babylonian
>>word.
>
> I hope, by now, you have answered my query as to why one would try to
> view one community's perspective through the perspective of another
> community.
And I hope the above has made clear that I'm not attempting a Babylonian
interpretation of Genesis.
> I know I would be very upset if someone were to take a word
> from my writing and interpreted it via someone else's writing, instead
> of reading further into my own writing to get my true meaning.
>
>>So let's look at what we've done: We've moved from an English
>>translation to the historical study needed to determine the original
>>word (as best we can tell), we've done further study to determine how
>>that word was used both in the Hebraic and surrounding cultures, and
>>thus we're closer to understanding the intent of the author of the text.
>> This is hard, inexact work. It's much easier to stay with one
>>translation and state certain parts are not open to anything other than
>>a literal interpretation. But the effort can be worth it, and I think
>>it is here.
>>
>>If you'd like to put forward a contrasting view supporting a literal
>>reading, I'd be happy to hear it.
>
> I have no scholarly reviews to offer you. But if my reasoning above
> makes sense, why reject it?
I'm making three claims here:
1. The word Tehom is a direct borrowing of the Babylonian Tiamat. (Not
unlike English borrowing "Poseidon" from Greek.)
2. Even though there were available Hebrew words for "ocean" or
"waters", Tehom was chosen instead.
3. A translation of "Tehom" to either "waters" or "deep", while
traditional, is simply not as accurate as it could be.
It looks like lots of ink has been spilled trying to discover if Genesis
copied, was inspired by, borrowed from, or simply used the same
vocabulary as the creations myths of the surrounding nations.
Fortunately, I don't have to argue any of those positions. All I think I
need to do is demonstrate that Tehom is a proper name and, taken
literally, it means "one of two Babylonian god present at the beginning
of time". As that doesn't appear to be what the author of this passage
intended, I'll conclude that the author did not intend a literal reading.
Here are two examples to confuse things further.
If I needed to translate "The Poseidon Adventure" into Chinese, I might
choose to change it to the Chinese equivalent of "The Ocean Adventure".
That's not an exact translation -- "Poseidon" tarts up the title a bit,
and we're losing that. A Chinese scholar who wanted to get a deep
understanding of the title couldn't rely on "ocean"; she'd have to go
back to "Poseidon" and then figure out what that terms means in our
culture.
If we instead need to translate "True Love and Chaos", then the Chinese
equivalent of "confusion" will probably do just fine. Chaos was a Greek
god too, but that association has almost vanished.
So, we have two words that originally started off as the names of Greek
gods. A literal interpretation of "Poseidon" will preserve that sense.
A literal interpretation of "chaos" probably shouldn't. Where does Tehom
fall in relation to these two?
Again, from wikipedia:
<q>
In the bible [Tehom] is treated as proper name, always being used without
a definite article.
</q>
And that's why I think a literal interpretation has to drag in the
Babylonian pantheon. I think such an interpretation weakens the text.
David Tsumura's _The Earth and the waters in Genesis 1 and 2 : a
linguistic investigation_ is in the library. I'll see if I can pick it
up tomorrow.
hhya...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:06:08 -0500, Zoe wrote:
Cool as it is, I believe Zoe's interest in Gensis and scripture had
been his early day influence through brainwashing education in the
church or parents.
I know its very hard for an adult to discard what had been irrational
teaching, falsehood or invented stories.
This is due also largely to the inability of the scientific community
to categorily demonstrate that a god is a non-existent identity.
However, science cannot be fault for this inability due to the fact
that god is just a perception, a descriptive being, a belief and has
no physical identity for detection.
Being an all powerful god as it is, no one dare to stand out to
confirm that god did appear before him.......
The promise by any party that there is a god is just an empty
"contract", with no ink writing in it.
For those who believe, the ink seemed real but not to physical
challenge in this modern world.
So, the ancient stories without independent witness and which could
not live up to modern day analysis becomes a very inked
"proof".........embraced by bigotry person or institution.
Sad, in that sense, the non- manifestation of god himself throughout
the centuries becomes a liability to the religion.
Worse, the teachings contained encouragement to bloodshed and killing.
Those with critical minds must realize how evil this religion is......!
Martin Golding
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:42:12 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:06:08 -0500, Zoe wrote:
I think some clarification is in order.
>> so can you predict what our present life forms will morph into?
> Yes.
No. Mutation is random. Random _means_ unpredictable, as close as
is useful for this discussion.
>> Can you
>> predict what natural selection will produce next?
This question appears to be wrong. Natural selection selects among
existing alleles. I don't see a reasonable meaning for "natural
selection ... will produce".
> Yup.
We can, given a solid understanding of a population's environment,
and a solid understanding of the effect of each of an existing set
of alleles, make fair predictions how the frequency of those alleles
are likely to change among the descendants of the population.
>> Can you predict what
>> an organism will evolve into next?
Organisms don't evolve, populations evolve. That's a nit, but avoiding
carelessness in the little things adds clarity to the big things.
> Sure.
No. We can't predict the mutations from which natural selection will
get the opportunity to select.
Martin
--
Martin Golding | You can lie _about_ statistics,
DoD #236 | but you can't lie _with_ statistics.
fog...@comcast.net Vancouver, WA
Garamond Lethe
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:42:12 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:06:08 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
> I think some clarification is in order.
Thanks!
>
>>> so can you predict what our present life forms will morph into?
>
>> Yes.
>
> No. Mutation is random. Random _means_ unpredictable, as close as is
> useful for this discussion.
The question was not whether random phenomenon were predictable, but
rather can we predict "life forms [] morph[ing]". We can -- it can be
the shape of finch beaks, the shape of shrew mandibles [as per the
abstract in the bit that you snipped], drug resistance, etc.
And of course -- for the level of this discussion -- individual mutations
are best modeled as random.
>
>
>>> Can you
>>> predict what natural selection will produce next?
>
> This question appears to be wrong. Natural selection selects among
> existing alleles. I don't see a reasonable meaning for "natural
> selection ... will produce".
>
>> Yup.
>
> We can, given a solid understanding of a population's environment, and a
> solid understanding of the effect of each of an existing set of alleles,
> make fair predictions how the frequency of those alleles are likely to
> change among the descendants of the population.
>
>
>>> Can you predict what
>>> an organism will evolve into next?
>
> Organisms don't evolve, populations evolve. That's a nit, but avoiding
> carelessness in the little things adds clarity to the big things.
Thanks, I missed that one.
>
>> Sure.
>
> No. We can't predict the mutations from which natural selection will get
> the opportunity to select.
Right -- the individual mutations are random, but we can say something
about what kinds of mutations will be selected. That was my
understanding of the question.
>
> Martin
Zoe
wrote:
the translation I'm checking for this thread is the Interlinear Bible,
Hebrew-Greek-English translation, Jay P. Green, Sr., general editor
and translator.
>
>
>> We've come to look at the Bible as a single book and therefore feel the
>> need for outside commentary. But the Bible is actually a compilation of
>> different writings -- commentaries, if you will -- so that it should be
>> possible to get the most accurate understanding of terms used by
>> cross-referencing within these commentaries.
>
>But not if the translation is masking the original language.
I'm looking at the "hieroglyphics" of the original language, and
comparing those outlines to the Hebrew alphabet's 22 letters and the
phonetic pronunciations. I see a "th" at the beginning, and an "m" as
the last character; the middle consonant is quiescent, so I guess
that's the beginning and end of your "Tehom," if you want to make it
Tehom.
I don't know what you call attributing a Babylonian meaning to a
Hebrew word, if not a Babylonian interpretation.
>
>> I know I would be very upset if someone were to take a word
>> from my writing and interpreted it via someone else's writing, instead
>> of reading further into my own writing to get my true meaning.
>>
>>>So let's look at what we've done: We've moved from an English
>>>translation to the historical study needed to determine the original
>>>word (as best we can tell), we've done further study to determine how
>>>that word was used both in the Hebraic and surrounding cultures, and
>>>thus we're closer to understanding the intent of the author of the text.
>>> This is hard, inexact work. It's much easier to stay with one
>>>translation and state certain parts are not open to anything other than
>>>a literal interpretation. But the effort can be worth it, and I think
>>>it is here.
>>>
>>>If you'd like to put forward a contrasting view supporting a literal
>>>reading, I'd be happy to hear it.
>>
>> I have no scholarly reviews to offer you. But if my reasoning above
>> makes sense, why reject it?
>
>I'm making three claims here:
>
>1. The word Tehom is a direct borrowing of the Babylonian Tiamat. (Not
>unlike English borrowing "Poseidon" from Greek.)
so are you saying that every time "deep" is translated in scripture
(and there are many times) that it is a nonliteral translation of the
Babylonian god? I've looked up several texts that contain the word
"deep" used in the context of waters, and it is the same Hebrew
outline for "deep" as the one in Genesis 1:1.
>2. Even though there were available Hebrew words for "ocean" or
>"waters", Tehom was chosen instead.
what were these available words for "ocean" or "waters"?
>3. A translation of "Tehom" to either "waters" or "deep", while
>traditional, is simply not as accurate as it could be.
the outline for "deep," by the way, is different from the outline for
"waters." So I don't think you should be saying that "waters" also
means Tehom.
>
>It looks like lots of ink has been spilled trying to discover if Genesis
>copied, was inspired by, borrowed from, or simply used the same
>vocabulary as the creations myths of the surrounding nations.
>Fortunately, I don't have to argue any of those positions. All I think I
>need to do is demonstrate that Tehom is a proper name and, taken
>literally, it means "one of two Babylonian god present at the beginning
>of time". As that doesn't appear to be what the author of this passage
>intended, I'll conclude that the author did not intend a literal reading.
>
>Here are two examples to confuse things further.
>
>If I needed to translate "The Poseidon Adventure" into Chinese, I might
>choose to change it to the Chinese equivalent of "The Ocean Adventure".
>That's not an exact translation -- "Poseidon" tarts up the title a bit,
>and we're losing that. A Chinese scholar who wanted to get a deep
>understanding of the title couldn't rely on "ocean"; she'd have to go
>back to "Poseidon" and then figure out what that terms means in our
>culture.
>
>If we instead need to translate "True Love and Chaos", then the Chinese
>equivalent of "confusion" will probably do just fine. Chaos was a Greek
>god too, but that association has almost vanished.
>
>So, we have two words that originally started off as the names of Greek
>gods. A literal interpretation of "Poseidon" will preserve that sense.
>A literal interpretation of "chaos" probably shouldn't. Where does Tehom
>fall in relation to these two?
I think Tehom belongs to where it came from, Babylonian literature,
and the outlines in Hebrew scripture that resemble Tehom are to be
understood differently by the further usage of "deep" in other parts
of scripture.
>
>Again, from wikipedia:
>
><q>
>In the bible [Tehom] is treated as proper name, always being used without
>a definite article.
></q>
hmmm, I don't see that here in Genesis 1:1. This translation uses
"the" along with "deep", and the "the" is not in italics, where
italics would mean there was the insertion of an article for
clarification.
>
>And that's why I think a literal interpretation has to drag in the
>Babylonian pantheon. I think such an interpretation weakens the text.
okay. I hear you. Can we just agree to differ?
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:06:08 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
>> On 16 Dec 2007 04:00:25 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:40:34 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> that was a badly worded question. Let me try again.
>>
>> Q. What are the processes that are claimed to produce new beneficial
>> inheritable traits?
>>
>> A. Those processes that are claimed to produce new beneficial
>> inheritable traits are random beneficial mutations and genetic drift.
>
>Mostly right. There are a couple of other mechanisms as well, and all of
>them can also produce neutral, detrimental, and lethal changes.
I am referring only to the rare "beneficial" mutations.
>
>>
>>>> Q. If the processes are random, then new traits are random.
>>>
>>>This is incorrect.
>>>
>>>I'm getting the impression you've confused "random" with
>>>"unconstrained". The two are very different concepts.
>>
>>>At the level of individual mutations, there isn't any such thing as a
>>>"new trait". Existing traits will be modified slightly -- sometimes
>>>this is slightly beneficial or negative, sometimes it's lethal, and most
>>>of the time it's just neutral. Over time, successive mutations can
>>>cause what we'd classify as a new trait, but this never happens within a
>>>single generation.
>>
>> well, I did use the word "processes," which would eliminate the
>> individual mutation as my meaning.
>
>Ah, that wasn't clear.
>
>> Can scientists predict what these
>> new traits will be?
>
>Much like scientists can predict the weather -- if you looking at large
>populations over the short term, then yes. The more specific and longer
>term you go, the worse the predictions get.
what is the short-term prediction of morphological change in bacteria
that are subjected to stress?
>
>>>> On that
>>>> basis, can you predict what random advantages will be retained through
>>>> natural selection?
>>>> A. No. You can only predict that natural selection may retain a new
>>>> advantage, but you cannot predict what that retained advantage will
>>>> be.
>>>
>>>This is incorrect.
>>>
>>>Show me an organism's predators and parasites and I'll tell you what the
>>>retained advantages will be.
>>
>> what are the retained advantages of antibiotic-resistant bacteria such
>> that the claim can be made that new morphologic features are developing?
>
>Not my field, but as an example: an enzyme might be modified so that it
>interferes with the functioning of the drug.
and that enzyme is produced as an inherent part of the immune system's
function. Doesn't sound like macroevolution....just a normal part of
an organism's defense system.
>
>> What is the evidence that developing changes are taking the bacterium
>> away from its species into an entirely new genus?
>
>As bacteria reproduce asexually, one has to use something other than
>reproductive isolation for classification.
reproductive isolation has not been demonstrated to actually cause
speciation of the macro-tending variety, certainly not as per the Dodd
article. Demonstration of reproductive isolation is not demonstration
of macroevolutionary changes.
>
>Would you like some help looking up the answer?
no, thanks. I have read enough to know the answer. I was just
checking to see what answer you might have up your sleeve.
>
>> When is a population
>> no longer recognized as bacteria but as organisms with, say, nucleated
>> cells?
>
>There's a continuum across all of life. To the extent that
>classifications help us understand life, they're useful. I have no idea
>how this particular classification is made. Again, would you like some
>help finding out?
no, thanks. I've read enough.
>
>> So far, what is being described is adaptation. Adaptation is
>> not thought to be the same as speciation, I hope.
>
>The two are orthogonal. A species can change (adapt) radically over
>time, yet no members of any given generation are reproductively
>isolated.
reproductive isolation has not been shown to cause speciation. It has
been speculated to lead to speciation, not demonstrated. (Unless by
"speciation" you mean adaptation?)
>
>>>
>>>This is easiest to see in drug resistance. Say we apply a new drug to a
>>>population of malaria. If the population is large enough, some members
>>>will be sufficiently different that they'll survive -- they have some
>>>natural resistance to the drug. They might not do well, their
>>>reproductive efficiency may drop, and there might not be enough of them
>>>to make you sick, but they're still around.
>>>
>>>The populations will continue to mutate as usual. Individuals whose
>>>mutation causes them to lose the resistance will be promptly weeded out
>>>of the population. However, there will be an occasional mutation that
>>>further increases resistance. That will be selected for and, after a
>>>sufficient number of generations have passed, most of the population
>>>will be highly resistant.
>>>
>>>In this case, only those traits that deal with the drug will be relevant
>>>-- indeed, such traits might have been actively harmful in a different
>>>environment.
>>
>> actually, the way I view this is not that some bacteria have developed a
>> new mutation that allows them to deal with drugs, but that there are
>> varying degrees of healthiness that allow for effective resistance to
>> negative influences in the environment.
>
>The "mutation ... to deal with drugs" is usually not an all-or-nothing
>proposition.
funny how we phrase the same event with different words. I would have
said "The inherent ability to deal with drugs...."
>
>> The healthier the organism, the
>> more able it is to adapt and deal with its environment.
>
>In this case, the drug is part of the environment for the malaria.
right. And the healthier immune system is more able to defend itself,
through adaptation, against the drug that is part of its environment.
>
>> "Healthy" here
>> refers to an organism whose immune system's integrity is not compromised
>> by preceding external conditions.
>
>Again, I think health is better defined on a continuum.
we agree. That is what I'm saying. There are different degrees of
health. If you want to use the term continuum, I'll go with that.
>
>> As a result, the offspring of
>> healthier parents will also be healthier than offspring of parents who
>> have weaker immune systems, and the healthier organisms are better able
>> to defend against negative influences, i.e., antibiotics, and pass on
>> this increasing ability to defend to their offspring.
>
>I think you're conflating "health" and "fitness" -- not difficult to do.
how do you differentiate the two? I say an organism survives because
it is healthier; you say it survives because it is more fit. How do
you determine if it is health or fitness that is the mechanism?
>In an environment with lots of food and few predators, even the least fit
>organisms can be healthy and reproductively successful. And where
>competition is the most fierce and the environment is harshest, the most
>fit may be healthy only in comparison to those who are less fit (who are
>dead).
I don't follow this at all. Is there any better way to explain the
difference?
>
>>
>>
>>>> That is what I mean when I say that evolution is unpredictable,
>>>> therefore untestable, therefore unscientific.
>>>
>>>The fact that some aspects of evolution are treated as though they are
>>>random is no bar to it being useful -- statistics handles this problem
>>>extraordinarily well. What is unpredictably random at the level of a
>>>single gene for a single individual is entirely tractable when dealing
>>>with a population over generations.
>>
>> so can you predict what our present life forms will morph into?
>
>Yes.
okay. What is your prediction for the human race? How about for
bacteria?
>
>> Can you
>> predict what natural selection will produce next?
>
>Yup.
I guess I didn't phrase the question well. And, apparently, Martin
Golding does not like it, either, so I will rephrase.
Can you predict what the population's organisms will look like once
natural selection retains enough advantageous new characteristics in a
population?
>
>> Can you predict what
>> an organism will evolve into next?
>
>Sure.
I'll rephrase. Can you predict what a population will look like when
it evolves away from a parent population?
>
>> Takes millions of years, you say?
>
>The Dodd paper you read took 8 generations over 1 year.
righto. That's why organisms like bacteria should be able to
demonstrate or invalidate evolutionary ideas. They can be
experimented upon in an environment where they won't get eaten up by
predators, put them under stress, and see what happens to the
millionth generation.
>
>> Then evolution is not observable,
>
>I think I remember posting a link to a t.o. faq that detailed dozens of
>observed instances of speciation. Evolution itself is so commonplace
>that you can observe it happening just by signing up for a good
>university biology class that has a lab section.
I read it. Here's just one supposed observation of speciation: an
unidentified bacterium grew from a short (1.5 um) rod to a long (20
um) rod in the presence of a ciliate predator. Did they check to see
if this change in morphology was passed on to offspring? Or was that
growth just a temporary development outside of the genes and not
passed on?
>
>> not testable,
>
>Well, evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies over
>time. Assuming you can measure those frequencies, and you do so over
>time, then it can be tested. Unsurprisingly, it works.
I am talking about macroevolution, in which it is claimed that a lab
the size of the universe would be needed, and time in the millions of
years is necessary, in order to observe macroevolution. With those
kinds of requirements, macroevolution is unobservable, untestable, and
unpredictable, I'm sure you would agree.
>
>> not predictable,
>
>Because we're able to predict evolution, we can design sane drug delivery
>policies for malaria. Because we're able to predict evolution, we can
>develop much more effective chemotherapy treatments.
you are talking about the normal changes (evolution) that everyone
accepts as part of nature and life. I am not talking about these
kinds of changes. There is this tendency to lump the whole theory of
evolution under the single word "evolution" without making a
distinction as to which "evolution" is being talked about. I am
talking only about macroevolution, that evolution that allows species
to cross over into a new genus.
Garamond, I've read enough to convince me that evolutionary theory is
speculation and beyond the level of hard science. I'd rather not
waste any more time on it.
>>>> Now I await your corrections.
note here: I was awaiting YOUR corrections, from your personal
understanding. Not references to other people's understanding.
Otherwise why would I be talking to you? I can go online or to a
library and read for myself, which is not the purpose of this
discussion.
snip>
>>> I'm writing a dissertation. This process takes years. Not
>>>too many months ago, I thought things were pretty well mapped out and I
>>>was making good progress. One experiment later and a third of that
>>>dissertation evaporated. The world was more complicated than I had
>>>anticipated, and I had a lot more work in front of me.
>>
>> what is your present dissertation about? And what was your last
>> dissertation about? You don't have to answer, of course. I'm just
>> curious.
>
>It's the same one -- power-aware supercomputing. The really big iron
>(>100,000 processors in one machine) can take over a million dollars a
>month in electricity to keep running. I've come up with a couple of
>techniques to shave a few percentage points off of that. I get to play
>with some of the fastest machines on the planet, and that's pretty fun.
now then! I'm impressed. Sounds like groundbreaking, useful
research...real science even. My respect for you grows.
snip>
>>>
>>>Both historically and in my own experience I've seen this attitude
>>>towards interpretation lead to mutually exclusive conclusions. This
>>>isn't unexpected, but each side feels they're obviously,
>>>incontrovertibly right. This makes me suspicious that both sides have
>>>it wrong.
>>
>> to which "sides" are you referring? The side of those who interpret
>> scripture using one set of commentaries or the side of those using
>> another set of commentaries? I hope I don't have a side because I like
>> to let the scriptures interpret themselves. As I do for any other
>> writing.
>
>Pro/anti slavery before and during the Civil War (and elsewhere).
>Pro/anti homosexuality.
>Pro/anti women's rights.
>Pro/anti divine rights of kings.
>Pro/anti antisemitism.
>Pro/anti whatever war we happen to be involved in at the moment.
>
>All used the same Bible and the same commentaries and reached exactly the
>conclusions they started with. (Yes, there were probably a few
>exception, but they're very, very rare.)
you need to include in that list pro/anti literal interpretation.
>
>>
>> If a writer uses the word "blossom" and the context is that of "thrive"
>> or "flourish," i.e., "Little Johnny began to blossom under the warmth of
>> their approval," I don't go outside of the writer's contextual meaning
>> and insist that since "blossom" is used elsewhere to mean a literal
>> flower or bloom that therefore the writer meant to say that "Little
>> Johnny was a flower." That is what I mean by letting scripture
>> interpret itself. The conclusions will be more accurate if we allow the
>> writer to explain himself.
>
>Of course.
>
>>
>> So if the writer says, "darkness was on the FACE of the deep," and in
>> the very next breath says, "and the Spirit moved upon the FACE of the
>> waters," his meaning seems clear to me because he has tied the two
>> together. I don't need to go to Babylonian literature to see what they
>> mean when they use the concept of "deep." Not when the original writer
>> has made it clear.
>
>But the original writer didn't say "deep". He used the proper name of a
>Babylonian creation god. If what he meant was "deep", then that's a
>metaphorical interpretation.
the Hebrew outline for "deep" is repeated many times in the Old
Testament. Are you saying that the Bible is really talking about a
Babylonian creation god and the accompanying legends? If this is the
case, then I suppose, you do not expect to to get an accurate picture
of the God that you worship from that source. So tell me, where do
you get your information about the god that you worship, please?
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:21:28 -0600, Martin Golding wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:42:12 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:06:08 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>>
>> I think some clarification is in order.
>
>Thanks!
>
>>
>>>> so can you predict what our present life forms will morph into?
>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> No. Mutation is random. Random _means_ unpredictable, as close as is
>> useful for this discussion.
>
>The question was not whether random phenomenon were predictable, but
>rather can we predict "life forms [] morph[ing]".
actually, the question was whether you could predict WHAT our present
life forms will morph into.
> We can -- it can be
>the shape of finch beaks, the shape of shrew mandibles [as per the
>abstract in the bit that you snipped], drug resistance, etc.
can you predict in advance that a finch's beak will grow longer or
shorter, based on random mutations? I don't think so. You have to
wait and see how the random "beneficial" mutation might affect the
organism, right? Postdict. Because the random mutation does not know
that the finch needs a longer beak under certain circumstances. It
might just accidentally cause an allele change that might accidentally
produce a longer beak, which allele change might just accidentally
happen to get into the germ line, causing offspring to inherit this
longer beak. But there is no guarantee this will happen, and you
cannot predict that it will happen.
But based on a theory that understands the inherent ability of an
organism to vary and adapt, it is possible to predict that a finch's
beak will grow longer if the need arises, or will shrink if there is
no longer a need for a long reach under changed circumstances.
>
>And of course -- for the level of this discussion -- individual mutations
>are best modeled as random.
in what way are groups of mutations not random?
snip>
>
>>
>>> Sure.
>>
>> No. We can't predict the mutations from which natural selection will get
>> the opportunity to select.
>
>Right -- the individual mutations are random, but we can say something
>about what kinds of mutations will be selected. That was my
>understanding of the question.
my question was, can you predict WHAT mutations will create new
morphology in a population.
Garamond Lethe
<snip lots>
> I am talking about macroevolution, in which it is claimed that a lab the
> size of the universe would be needed, and time in the millions of years
> is necessary, in order to observe macroevolution. With those kinds of
> requirements, macroevolution is unobservable, untestable, and
> unpredictable, I'm sure you would agree.
<snip lots>
Zoe, do you know how to weigh a mountain?
Seriously.
Given a calculator, a book on solid geometry, a hammer and chisel, a
kitchen scale, and a detailed topographic map, would you be able to
predict the weight of the mountain underneath your feet? Can you think
of how to test that prediction? Can you think of how your prediction
might be falsified or improved?
Pretty trivial, right?
So after two hundred years of increasingly accurate measurements, core
samples, and advances in mathematics and computer modeling, someone comes
along and tells you that it's not possible to weigh mountains because
they can't fit onto a scale. Thus, no one had ever observed the weight
of a mountain, any suggested weights cannot be tested, and the change of
the weight over time cannot not be predicted.
Of course, this person isn't so silly as to say that small rocks can't be
weighed -- that's obvious. But mountains -- that's just not possible.
And why? Their reading of the Bible states that mountains are
measureless, and that this is to be taken literally.
The relevant mathematical, geological, hydrological, and seismological
literature is dismissed with nothing more than "I've made up my mind."
What do you do?
-----
If you're here to learn, I'm ready and eager to learn along side you. I
respect you for reading von Rad and Dodd. Since that time I've read the
relevant sections of five other critical works on Genesis and perhaps a
dozen papers. You've indicated that you're not interested in further
reading.
I have no problem with you being skeptical. I have no problem with you
remaining a creationist. But if you're not curious, then I need to
allocate this time to other things.
I hope you'll reconsider, and I'll be happy to continue the conversation
when you have the time and interest to commit to reading.
Best,
Garamond
Zoe
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:19:15 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
><snip lots>
you snipped the stuff I would have liked to see your personal position
on.
>
>> I am talking about macroevolution, in which it is claimed that a lab the
>> size of the universe would be needed, and time in the millions of years
>> is necessary, in order to observe macroevolution. With those kinds of
>> requirements, macroevolution is unobservable, untestable, and
>> unpredictable, I'm sure you would agree.
>
><snip lots>
>
>
>Zoe, do you know how to weigh a mountain?
>
>Seriously.
>
>Given a calculator, a book on solid geometry, a hammer and chisel, a
>kitchen scale, and a detailed topographic map, would you be able to
>predict the weight of the mountain underneath your feet? Can you think
>of how to test that prediction? Can you think of how your prediction
>might be falsified or improved?
>
>Pretty trivial, right?
>
>So after two hundred years of increasingly accurate measurements, core
>samples, and advances in mathematics and computer modeling, someone comes
>along and tells you that it's not possible to weigh mountains because
>they can't fit onto a scale. Thus, no one had ever observed the weight
>of a mountain, any suggested weights cannot be tested, and the change of
>the weight over time cannot not be predicted.
>
>Of course, this person isn't so silly as to say that small rocks can't be
>weighed -- that's obvious. But mountains -- that's just not possible.
"this person" is really evolutionist posters to this forum who claimed
that we'd need a lab the size of the universe to test macroevolution.
I was merely quoting them.
>
>And why? Their reading of the Bible states that mountains are
>measureless, and that this is to be taken literally.
that particular response came from evolutionists in this newsgroup.
>
>The relevant mathematical, geological, hydrological, and seismological
>literature is dismissed with nothing more than "I've made up my mind."
>
>What do you do?
about what?
>
>-----
>
>If you're here to learn, I'm ready and eager to learn along side you.
I'm more interested in discussion right now, about what I've already
learned about what evolutionists believe.
I
>respect you for reading von Rad and Dodd. Since that time I've read the
>relevant sections of five other critical works on Genesis and perhaps a
>dozen papers. You've indicated that you're not interested in further
>reading.
I'm not interested in further reading until I get some answers on what
I've already read -- and I've read more than just von Rad or Dodd, by
the way. I didn't just start reading when you came along, you know,
Garamond. I've been at this for the last seven years. I was hoping
that you had some good answers to the questions that have arisen
during my studies here, and that we could have a discussion based on
our knowledge acquired thus far, but maybe not. Too bad.
>
>I have no problem with you being skeptical. I have no problem with you
>remaining a creationist. But if you're not curious, then I need to
>allocate this time to other things.
oh, please, don't let me waste your time. If your intent was to
convert me, then you just might be wasting your time. Just as I'm
sure I'd be wasting mine if I were trying to convert you.
As to curiosity, I'm always curious, but I know when to stop going
down a path that does not appeal to reason.
>
>I hope you'll reconsider, and I'll be happy to continue the conversation
>when you have the time and interest to commit to reading.
oh, I wasn't trying to wrap things up by saying I didn't want to read
more stuff. I was simply saying that I've read enough so far that
I've already concluded (before meeting you) that macroevolutionary
theory is not scientific. As to the discussion on Genesis, I have not
stopped the conversation.
My hope was that a stimulating discussion with a polite evolutionist
like yourself would actually open some new windows of insight for both
of us. But now that you have stopped interacting and instead are
trying to direct me to go read some more....well, seems like the
discussion is over.
snip>
Free Lunch
Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote in
<22ogm39np29ndo1ls...@4ax.com>:
I profoundly doubt that. I have no idea if the poster was putting you
on, mocking you, or just didn't say what you are telling us, but no
scientist is that foolish.
Greg G.
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:29:10 -0500, in talk.origins
> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 18 Dec 2007 04:35:40 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com>
IANA scientist but I think I have said something similar such as "to
test abiogenesis, one would need a test tube the size of the world and
several million years". I don't doubt that a creationist could
misremember that as "macroevolution" and "universe".
--
Greg G.
Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.
--Margaret Thatcher
.
Ilas
news:9fdea33f-13ca-4f75...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 18, 7:52 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:29:10 -0500, in talk.origins
>> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote in
>> <22ogm39np29ndo1lsuap1a86s35bjfm...@4ax.com>:
>> >"this person" is really evolutionist posters to this forum who
>> >claimed that we'd need a lab the size of the universe to test
>> >macroevolution. I was merely quoting them.
>>
>> I profoundly doubt that. I have no idea if the poster was putting you
>> on, mocking you, or just didn't say what you are telling us, but no
>> scientist is that foolish.
>
> IANA scientist but I think I have said something similar such as "to
> test abiogenesis, one would need a test tube the size of the world and
> several million years". I don't doubt that a creationist could
> misremember that as "macroevolution" and "universe".
Of course, Zoe is also making the common creationist assumption that
"evolutionists" are a monolithic entitity that thinks with a single mind
and speaks with a single voice, that what one "evolutionist" thinks is what
all of us think. I'm never sure if this is deliberately dishonest or
another example of that creationist inability to think logically being
discussed in another thread.
Mike L
> On Dec 18, 7:52 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:29:10 -0500, in talk.origins
> > >"this person" is really evolutionist posters to this forum who claimed
> > >that we'd need a lab the size of the universe to test macroevolution.
> > >I was merely quoting them.
>
> > I profoundly doubt that. I have no idea if the poster was putting you
> > on, mocking you, or just didn't say what you are telling us, but no
> > scientist is that foolish.
>
> IANA scientist but I think I have said something similar such as "to
> test abiogenesis, one would need a test tube the size of the world and
> several million years". I don't doubt that a creationist could
> misremember that as "macroevolution" and "universe".
As I remember it, such a remark is sometimes made as a reply to the
kind of creationist who says "Abiogenesis is impossible, because
you've been trying to bring it about in the laboratory for nearly a
hundred years, and you've failed." I doubt if Zoe is one of the kind
who deliberately misquote to score an empty point, but she's
presumably as capable as any of us of misremembering.
--
Mike.
Greg Guarino
>>
>>The populations will continue to mutate as usual. Individuals whose
>>mutation causes them to lose the resistance will be promptly weeded out
>>of the population. However, there will be an occasional mutation that
>>further increases resistance. That will be selected for and, after a
>>sufficient number of generations have passed, most of the population will
>>be highly resistant.
>>
>>In this case, only those traits that deal with the drug will be relevant
>>-- indeed, such traits might have been actively harmful in a different
>>environment.
>
>actually, the way I view this is not that some bacteria have developed
>a new mutation that allows them to deal with drugs, but that there are
>varying degrees of healthiness that allow for effective resistance to
>negative influences in the environment.
I would say that this is a very simplistic view. The bacteria that
were killed by the antibiotic (which would be the majority of them, if
the antibiotic was any good) were not less "healthy" than those that
survived, just unsuited to the new antibiotic-laced environment.
Health isn't a holistic quality, at least not in this example. If it
was, then the same "healthier" individuals would be the survivors of
any catastrophe: heat, acidity, antibiotic A, antibiotic B, antibiotic
C, etc. But if we tried a different antibiotic we would likely find
that a different handful of individuals would be the survivors, not
due to some overall hardiness, but more likely a quirk of their
chemistry that prevents the antibiotic from killing them.
Absent the particular "stress" of the chosen antibiotic, those
individuals would be no more healthy than the rest. Thy might in some
ways be less so. As Garamond says: "such traits might have been
actively harmful in a different environment". But in the presence of a
stress factor as catastrophic as an effective antibiotic, even an
otherwise harmful trait that allows an individual to survive will be
selected for.
Greg Guarino
Garamond Lethe
> On 18 Dec 2007 04:35:40 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:19:15 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>>
>><snip lots>
>
> you snipped the stuff I would have liked to see your personal position
> on.
I have prepared a couple of detailed responses to this post but I'm not
satisfied with either. I'm going to be traveling for most of the
holidays and will respond as time and connectivity allows.
I'll keep the Genesis books out of the library. In particular, you might
want to grab Tsumura's _The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2_. I
have the 1989 edition, but I understand there's a more recent one out.
Also, Sarna's _Understanding Genesis_.
I do plan on responding, but it will be a while.
Garamond