An apology to PUC
If you check my posts on this thread – the first time I state the “organism genome” distinctive – I use the boolean condition of different genes (at least one gene that does not code for the same protein in the organism’s genome, so not an allele of an existing gene common to both organism’s genomes) – and a fixed number of Chromosomes.

BobRyan Said

http://www.educatetruth.com/news/an-apology-to-puc/comment-page-2/#comment-22480

“Human” taken as “an organism” has A genome. That genome is static in terms of the number and type of coding genes and Chromosomes. At the individual genome level within the organism (form of life) entirely new coding genes do not pop into existence and express themselves. Rather existing coding genes for the organism in general are damaged or switched on or switched off in addition to having various naturally occuring forms (alleles) yet it is still the same gene type. (for example OCA2 as one of the genes that helps to determine eye color). In the human genome project – the human organism has the OCA2 coding gene and it is always on the same chormosome and in this organism the number chromosomes are fixed.

And then the next post

BobRyan said
http://www.educatetruth.com/news/an-apology-to-puc/comment-page-2/#comment-22481

All the variations within a single genome are — variations within a single genome (at the organism level). They do not create new more complex genomes from simpler ones. So Wolf, Dog, Coyote, Jackal – ALL have the same number and type of coding genes producing the same set of proteins if those genes are activated and expressed in phenotype, all the same number of chromosomes — Obviously.

Such “new coding gene TYPE pops into existence for this genome” fiction is not “observed by science” in nature – because it does not HAPPEN in nature.

I already pointed this out with wolf, the endless breeds of dog, coyote and jackal — all ONE single static genome (at the organism level – in terms of the number of coding genes AND the type of coding genes, the number of chromosomes etc)!

Recently the discussion has drifted to the idea of the exact same gene pool but in a different chromosome configuration.

At this point I don’t find a way to equate an organism’s genome to the idea of a “gene pool” encompassing different organism’s genomes’ where they do not contain all of the same gene in the respective organism genome.

But even in that case – mixing two different organism’s genomes where there exists gene types in one organism’s genome that do not exist in the other organism’s genome – is what I am calling a parent mix that creates a chimera. (A + C = B).

And getting back to the original point – this does not address the requirement for macroevolution which is (A + A * a billion = C).

in Christ,

Bob

---

An apology to PUC

BobRyan said
For true polymorphism within a single genome you would need to show the same-karyotype parents producing offspring with varying number of chromosomes – and then of course for macro evolution the offspring would need to include code for new proteins.

As I’ve already pointed out to you, parents with different numbers of chromosomes can produce offspring that are both viable and fertile. This means that a functional “kind” of organism is not based on the number of it’s chromosomes.

It appears we have both given examples of two parents that have different numbers of chromosomes – between the parents – having offspring and agreeing that this could be offspring that are fertile not limited to non-fertile offspring. I find that statement in my posts above and in yours.

Where we appear to “differ” is that I claim that some of this may be the result of chimera mating and you appear to argue that this can never be the source.

Bob said
Your point that “gene pool” includes polymorphism does not rule out the source being the chimera phenomina rather than a single genome really splitting on its own.

Again, you don’t seem to understand the concept of “chimeras” or the idea that chromosomal number is not necessarily related to “speciation” or producing some phenotypically unique creature.

Here “again” you have ruled out the mixing of parents that produces a chimera as the source for the difference in chromosomes — as if “by definition” chimeras are not produced in such a way.

Fine – please let me know what definition you are using for chimera if not a case of parents of two different “organism genomes” producing offspring. My statement above is simply that the chimera offspring may be fertile or in other cases may not be depending on the genetic compatability.

(Assuming we agree on the diffinition for an “organism’s genome” in this question) — where is it that my use of use of the term “chimera” is flawed?.

in Christ,

Bob

---

An apology to PUC
Ok – we might be arguing semantics here but for the sake of defining terms – you said –

Again, a genome includes all the basic gene types for a single organism – and, by extension, all organisms within the same “gene pool”. However, a given genome will not include all the various different types of allelic options or variations for a give type of gene. The gene pool, on the other hand, does include all of these allelic variations.

Which appears to be addressing a few different things – one of which is that a personal genome does not include all allele variations for a given Gene. However I assume you agree that the organism genome (as in the Human Genome mapping, or the horse genome mapping) does include a given gene and its allele instances for the entire organism. Or is this also a point where we are using different definitions?

In addition – your “gene pool” term appears to include any form of chimera without limit – since all chimeras result in a “set of genes” contained in chromosomes. In those cases – which organism’s “genome” are you attributing the chimera to?? For example we now have pigs with human blood and we have mules. Who do you attribte the resulting “gene pool” to?

in Christ,

Bob

---

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.

---

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.

---

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.

---

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.

---

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind

---