| 1246320605|%a|agohover |
|
1246320605|%Y|agohover |
I'm a believer in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. In short, the theory goes like so:
If the reproduction process was perfect, the offspring would have 50% of its genes from each parent. But sometimes it is not perfect, and what can happen is that some genes mutate from errors in the cell division process or from a means of radiation. Thus, the mutated1 gene is different from the same gene each parent passed on2. This means that the offspring with the mutated gene will pass on this mutated gene to future generations if it reproduces. Because each gene performs a function of some sort, a mutated gene can perform a different function previously unseen in the species.
Gene mutations have allowed species of animals to survive certain events in history, and hence, the species are more evolved (as they were able to survive). This is called "survival of the fittest".
 Three Bulls3 © James Kanjo 2006 |
I think that natural evolution of the human species has stopped. But first, let me talk about Lactose Tolerance.
Over 10,000 years ago4 a gene mutation occurred in the human population. This particular gene mutation enabled the production of lactase in our bodies. Lactase is an enzyme that breaks down lactose, the main sugar found in milk and (therefore) dairy products.
People lacking this gene mutation are unable to properly digest lactose, and trying to do so will cause symptoms such as "abdominal cramps, bloating and violent watery diarrhoea"5. Such people are "lactose intolerant", and become very sick and die and if they continue to consume lactose.
Lactose Tolerant people are therefore considered to be biologically "more evolved". But because we figured out that some people became sick from digesting dairy foods, we tell lactose intolerant people to not eat them.
This is where natural human evolution ceases to progress:
Because our medical knowledge is so large and constantly growing, we are becoming better and better at prolonging the life of all individuals. Because we are detecting lactose intolerant people, and preventing them from eating lactose-foods, we are stopping them from dying. Because they aren't dying, they continue to live and produce lactose-intolerant offspring. Hence the entire human population as a whole is not going through the process of "natural selection", and the entire human race has stopped evolving.
When you think about it, this applies to lots of things: allergies, genetic disorders and syndromes, disease immunity, infection immunity and even cancer.
By prolonging the life of these people, we are not prolonging the ability for our species to survive in the wild. But it would be inhumane and downright evil to systematically eliminate the people who are holding our species back.
So how do we continue to evolve, if we can't so naturally? The answer is a highly controversial concept:
Human Genetic Engineering
There are many ethical considerations currently in debate about this, but I believe that it is a process that is necessary to advance our species. It would fix so many problems, and just for example, with the case of "designer babies", you could change the lactose intolerance gene to become lactose tolerant; thus giving birth to a "more evolved" baby.
People need to let go of their conventional beliefs and the silly "don't play God" arguments.6 But at the same time we DO need to impose a set of laws and regulations to prevent us from going crazy (i.e. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, The Future Trap by Catherine Jinks).
I'm positive, however, that this is the best option for us, and that we can do it responsibly.
~ James Kanjo
I watched a TED talk in school one day about humans controlling their own evolution. It is quite scary when you watch it.
I, however, do not think Evolution is a legitimate theory. The two largest things against Evolution is the chance of life occurring naturally and the theory of a Young Earth.
In a nutshell, the chance of life occurring naturally is astronomical, in fact it is practically impossible. The theory of the origin of life is that the first life form emerged from some primordial soup of chemicals. But how on earth did these chemicals bond together to form something that lives, that can move and actually think that it needs to survive? And more importantly, how did it know to reproduce? Well, the chance of life occurring is equivalent to the following from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/figures.asp :
"Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take l0147 years to obtain just one stable gene."
And the theory for Young Earth simply states that the earth is not billions of years old but only thousands. Some theories to help explain this include certain VSL theories, the Moon and Roche limit, and special fossils that were found.
If you haven't yet watched "Evolution: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein, I encourage you to watch it.
And at Life's Handbook, this will be further explained sometime in the future. Right now, we have somewhat limited information.
As for humans and genetic engineering, I generally don't like the idea. I don't think I have a specific reason why; it just seems scary and perhaps even unpredictable. And most of all, it seems just… unnatural.
But anyways, good post!
— Blog ~ Life's Handbook ~ Wikidot Design & Development
Yeah, I did check out Life's Handbook when you announced it on your blog… great work!
I hadn't heard of the Young Earth theory before — it's pretty interesting.
As with your view on human genetic engineering, and it seeming unnatural… well, yeah. It is unnatural, which supports my view that humans can no longer evolve "naturally" and should seek out "unnatural ways" evolve. Albeit, it's a very controversial view, most people disagree.
λ James Kanjo
Blog | Wikidot Expert | λ and Proud
Web Developer | HTML | CSS | JavaScript
The theory of evolution was not started by Charles Darwin. People credit different people for the creation of evolutionism.
However, I must protest to the theory that things are simply just by chance. If you think about it, simply looking at this web page, and thinking about how we used to be so "primitive", then you think, "wow, we must have evolved." Wrong. You see, as Timothy has already stated, the chances of getting even a single gene is astronomical. Besides the fact, where did the atoms come from in the first place. If you are a proponent of the Big Bang theory, you should know, that an explosion throws things outwards, not collects them together, and even so, where the heck did that matter come from anyway!!!
Another thing, is that if you believe that the earth has "evolved", then you are wrong, because for the earth to evolve, into a suitable environment to live in, it would take so much energy, that it just wouldn't happen. One of the laws of Science, is that energy cannot simply be created, or destroyed. Where did the energy come from.
If you think about it, what makes up you?
Atoms
What makes up atoms?
Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons.
Well, what makes up those?
Energy. At it's lowest form, everything is made up of energy.
Q) So, if you are saying, that things cannot just be created like that, aren't you kinda disproving your own Theology?
A) No, because God has shown countless times that he is not controlled by what he created.
Q) How the heck has God always been, and how will he always be?
A) That requires a fairly complex understanding of time, and how God is not a part of "our" timeline. He is outside time, basically.
Q) Is that smoke I smell
A) Yeah, that is from my fingers and keyboard. I will be back once I put out the fire on my keyboard.
I've just realised from both of your responses that I may have given the impression that I'm anti-God.
Not at all.
As you have both realised, the chances of a stable gene (and therefore life) are essentially zero. Impossible. So our existence proves the existence of God, because only God could make it happen.
Personally, I don't understand how scientific theories contradict the existence of God: If a Big Bang happened, then the astronomical probabilities of it happening also prove that God must have created it. If all organic life is the evolved product of a single, impossible organism, well, it proves that God must have developed it.
All I'm saying here is, by agreeing to the theory of evolution, I'm not disagreeing to God. It does contradict the Bible, but the Bible was not a book written by God1.
λ James Kanjo
Blog | Wikidot Expert | λ and Proud
Web Developer | HTML | CSS | JavaScript
Obviously, we shall take this one a step at a time.
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24. It does not simply apply to money. You either love God, or you hate Him. There is no, in-between, so even though you say you are anti-God, by not being a Christian, and I use that word at it's original inteded meaning, you are "anti-God".
And therefore, why do you contradict Him!!! The only evolution there is is that of a small organic scale, that people just said must be happening on a larger scale, and made facts by assumptions.
OOh, you really just crossed the line there… lol, I am just kidding, don't get so freaked out. Anyway, again, you cannot serve two masters. Besides, the fact that you stated, that "the Bible was not a book written by God", both inflames me, and shows me that you haven't been paying attention in Sunday school, lol. Anyway, the Bible, well most of it, was written by humans, through the word of God. I believe Genesis was written by God himself, or somebody was shown a vision, and didn't write author information.
As for the footnote, I would like to point out that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Here, I want to test myself. How about, that you list everything that is contradictory in the Bible, and I want to try and dispel it.
Wow, some really good points to consider there. Nicely countered =D
I'm a Catholic Christian, by the way, in case you didn't know from my WYD experience.
I haven't read the Bible for 3 years, so my memory is hazy. Although in my religion class last year I did study Genesis, so that book is much fresher in my mind.
There are two stories of creation in Genesis: The first where God creates the universe in seven days1, and his final creation was the pinnacle of everything: Humans. He essentially prepares the world for mankind, filling it with all this beauty such as plants, water, stars, animals and sky. In the second story, God creates Man (Adam) and then decides to create animals to keep him company. God even let adam name all of his creatures.
That is ONE contradiction in the Bible. And you know what, who cares? One contradiction doesn't mean the whole thing is a book of lies. The fundamental purpose of the Bible is to guide and teach us to be good people. Then there are a few interesting stories to go with them.
Hmm, I think I might read the Bible again. It's always a good read.
λ James Kanjo
Blog | Wikidot Expert | λ and Proud
Web Developer | HTML | CSS | JavaScript
Honestly, I must say that catholicism is wrong. That is the most polite way of saying it. God created the animals before humans, and breathed life into humans. DO not read the catholic Bible, because that is full of lies. Also, the Bible is not just a guide to be good people, because if that where true, what is a "good" person. Think about what paul said to the Romans. He asked a rhetorical question as to whether the law was sin. He said no, because if it weren't for the law, he would not have known what the law was. If you think about it, how is it that there is a catholic church. I don't remember which one, but there is a verse in the Bible which states that there was an apostle, I think Peter, who was supposedly made the first "Pope". This is why I am hesitant in using the word "Christian", because most people think of the catholic church. They put us together with everyone carrying the name "Christian". The Catholic church lied to it's people quite a long time ago. They persecuted the Huguenots, which are French Protestants. They also introduced "purgatory", and said that you can give money to the church, and that that will get you out of purgatory, or a family member. They lied to their people. You cannot buy your way into heaven, as was displayed when Jesus went throughout the temple, turning over the money tables. Most people see this as an act of rage, and quickly put Him down, saying that that is the reason He was not perfect. That is not true. It is very hard to understand, probably harder than understanding advanced time principles, how God was human, and could not sin. Sin comes from the father, and so, without a father, he inherited no sin. This is the part that is hard to understand: "If God had a human body, he must have sinned. You can't tell me that if a cute girl walked across the street, he didn't think she was beautiful. That would go against your statement that said that 'God went through everything we went through'." Well, how do you describe how He didn't sin? Well, that is an interesting topic. Ya see, God could sin. He had the ability to sin, but he had no desire to sin. That is also how we have free will, but God still know everything. If you where to think about it on a timeline, where you are at point A. You can either go to point B, which is, let's say join a nice college, or you can go to point C, which could be go live with your brother, taking all of his money, and then going to Vegas. God knows the outcome of both of those. He can see all the way to point D, which is ahead of A, B, and C. If you choose B, that is the one that God originally had. But if you see B, and say, "well that looks better, so I will prove God wrong, and go to C." Well, that is still what God originally had planned for you. You simply cannot trick God. So what about free will then. If God knows everything about us, and knows our decisions even before we realize we are going to make them, how can we have free will. Well, do you have strings attached to you. You can make decisions, and God will use whatever decision you make, to His glory. Honestly, please read a bible like the nkjv. Honestly, some day, I hope that you see the truth, and hope I will see you in heaven. If not, I tried.
P.S. I will probably continue trying, until I can no longer type.
FYI, when people refer to "buying your way into heaven", it is called indulgence.
I've only read the "Good News Bible". I'll check out the New King James version sometime — I didn't realise that there were different versions of the same Bible! Thanks.
λ James Kanjo
Blog | Wikidot Expert | λ and Proud
Web Developer | HTML | CSS | JavaScript
Well yeah. When Catholicism was the main religion, some people tried to reform the catholic Bible, while others translated a more original text from a more ancient language. You know the whole "separation of church and state" thing. That all started in this era. The pope crowned someone king! So during the philosophical era, or the age of enlightenment, people came up with these ideas. Heck, separation of church and state is not even in the constitution. I believe that it was found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson. Either way, and back to the original topic, the diference is not only with translations, but how kings changed the Bible to match their doctrine. Not only that, but a scribe was the official "copying machine". However, the original owner could have wrote a note in the margin, or the scribe could be tired, and leave out an entire verse. In fact, that was done once in one poem, where they take the letters of the jewish alphabet, an start each stanza with that, there was a letter missing. That was found in the dead sea scrolls. The Bible is accurate, to the point that it still holds God's meassage. I don't believe He would let it be incorrect, or put anythig in there that shouldn't be. He know's what He's doing.
The next time I visit and there is a heated discussion XD
Honestly, I didn't read everything, but I might be able to make a few points.
The original text of the Bible has no contradictions. After thousands of years of transcribing, of course there may have been typological errors, and those don't matter too much since the basic point is still the same.
Obviously, God didn't write the Bible. He had many different people write it. But it was inspired by God.
I like NKJV since I believe it to be the most accurate English Bible version out there, other than KJV which can be confusing. (Bible versions briefly discussed here)
There are theories that God used evolution during the Creation, but I don't believe them. The Bible says he spoke all things into existence in six days, and I believe the Bible is entire 100% correct. Also, there are other theories besides Evolution. Unfortunately, evolutionists do everything to shut them up because they are afraid (watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein to see what I mean).
Where is this in the Bible?
Reading the Bible is always a good thing. It is filled with wisdom and history and love.
And in any case, it is always best to remember what hope we have in living and after such from John 3:16.
— Blog ~ Life's Handbook ~ Wikidot Design & Development
Post preview:
Close preview