Chromosome fusion

[godslanguage]

GL, it's not a case of anything like that. I guess I realized how hard it is to have discussions of this kind when we don't share a frame of reference, and we don't have a common understanding of something as simple as the Biblical ground motive. I may have become lost in my own research and thoughts too much, and assumed that it would be easily communicable and understood.

Was there anything specific you still wanted to address or see addressed?

Simply, I find this discussion rather interesting, and I had hoped you wouldn't close it off this early, unless ofcourse it has answered your question or completed the objective of your thread, which I don't think it did. I would still like to hear responses from others as well...thats all!

[zoegirl]

GL, it's not a case of anything like that. I guess I realized how hard it is to have discussions of this kind when we don't share a frame of reference, and we don't have a common understanding of something as simple as the Biblical ground motive. I may have become lost in my own research and thoughts too much, and assumed that it would be easily communicable and understood.

Was there anything specific you still wanted to address or see addressed?

I take exception to this. First of all, coming off as very condescending. The Bibical ground motive (creation, fall, redemption) certainly establishes the basis for understanding the world, but as long as we adhere to God being in control, how are we diminishing this?

Let's establish some more answers.

Do you adhere to the idea that there was absolutely no death before the fall? You seem to hinge most of your description of the creation before the fall based on the entry of death. That this fall and the entry of death trapped us in time. But do you also say that plants never died? Did plants even grow in this non-temporal world? Did they even photosynthesize? If they did, how would you account for controlled apoptosis? In plant growth, apoptosis is crucial to deciduous trees. Did the leaves fal by some other way than through controled cell death? Were there even seasons before the fall? Bacterial cell death? In our digestive systems thousands of bacterial cells die through shedding and immune reactions. Did this exist before the fall? Skin cells? Did we not need the outer layer of dead cells that protect us from dehydration and physical abrasions? If we did, how would you account for celluar death? What about the development of the immune system? In order for the immune cells to learn, they must categorize all of the bodies cells and learn to tolerate host cells. Before the fall, did we not need the immune system? Were there no bacteria? What about the epithelial layer of cells within the entire digestive that regrow within days? Did we not have the acid layer? Did we not need the acid layer? Would we have even needed to eat? That seems to contradict God's giving us the plants for food. Why need food if we are not trapped within time. Why woud we go hungry?

If your idea of a different universe is true, then were all of these structures and events not present? If there were no seasons, then were there no deciduous trees? If there was no time, why create trees that drop their leaves and plants that "grow". Would we have born children with brain that developed through experience? You say there was no sense of time before the fall. Would animals have been born with brains that learn? But without time to create a frame of reference, how would learning be established?

Every living thing's design is tied into a process linked with time. Every physiological event...every organism's genome a roadmap to events that respond...react to environmental signals.

This then creates an intersting dilemma....Did these structures and processes exist before the fall? Then God created structures with a flawed design. Were they not present before the fall? you must suppose that the fall effected creation so drastically that it fundamentally changed not only structures but also processes, which as you said, would have essentially been changing the creation after God had already established and rested.

So upon reflection, no I don't agree that the creation before the fall was without time.

Thoughts?

[August]

GL, it's not a case of anything like that. I guess I realized how hard it is to have discussions of this kind when we don't share a frame of reference, and we don't have a common understanding of something as simple as the Biblical ground motive. I may have become lost in my own research and thoughts too much, and assumed that it would be easily communicable and understood.

Was there anything specific you still wanted to address or see addressed?

I take exception to this. First of all, coming off as very condescending. The Bibical ground motive (creation, fall, redemption) certainly establishes the basis for understanding the world, but as long as we adhere to God being in control, how are we diminishing this?

I fail to see why you are offended. I said that we apparently do not have a common understanding of the Biblical ground motive. All that means is that we have different starting points from which we approach this discussion. I certainly did not mean to imply that you are wrong.

Also, I have said in several places during this discussion that what you propose is not precluded.

However, this still would not exclude a God who chooses to use genes/chromosomes/forms from multiple forms to create higher levels organisms. We share some genes with bacteria, could He have chosen to use this? Sure, why not? COuld He hav chosen to merge two chromosomes to create one in humans? If it pleases Him, absolutely (I know this sounds like a sop-out, but hey, He is God)

No it does not exclude that possibility.

But it does raise some further questions.

however, does this exclude God using similar forms/genes/chromosomes, withholding time from the equation?

No, it does not. In fact, given the existence of modalities, we predict similarities.

We don't have to agree on everything. But if you want to turn this into a slug fest, then by all means, go ahead. In fact, trying to rub my face in your series of biological questions about death seems to already be going in that direction.

Ok, you are right, I am wrong, God created in the way that you feel He should have. I hope you feel vindicated.

[zoegirl]

No, I gladly give up any feeing of condescension. I trust you enough that if you truly did not mean anything then I believe you. I have neen reading up on the ground motive and still don't see any worries, but not the great philosopher... so wouldn't be surprised if I missed somehting.

My apologies too if my tone came off as wanting to get down to a slugfest.

I don't want to feel vindicated nor do I want to to offer any vindications, nor do I want a trivial "ok your;re right" But I meant what I said when you gave me food for thought. The questions came from continuing to think about the time aspect. I truly am interested. What do you think?

I wasn't meaning it to be a slugfest but I must confess the more I thought about it the more things kept popping up in my mind. So any thoughts?

[godslanguage]

First off, In terms of the initial article August presented about the chromosomal fusion: evidence for common ancestry in genetics (which I certainly do not know much about in terms of genetics). But the central/core theme of this thread (I believe) is strictly around the following conditions/criteria:

If the genome is indeed meant to convey a message from the Creator, then we should expect to see high degrees of similarity and repetition. It poses an alternative answer, but still not something that
would definitively distinguish it from a naturalist explanation.

Theologically, do we then speculate that the image of God is what differentiates us from animals, and not genetics?

What is there that you can argue instead of the premises above that necessarily leads to the conclusion of a Christian God Creator?

And they are some tough ones...lots of logic to think about...

[Byblos]

I'm perhaps partly to blame here for diverting the discussion onto TE whereas it may be irrelevant to the questions being paused.

August, Zoegirl, I agree with GL that this discussion is much too important to be cut off because of petty squabbles I know both of you can dismiss and get beyond rather quickly (through PMs perhaps?). Let's re-focus and try to address the issues at hand as GL suggested. Please carry on.

[zoegirl]

My sincerest apologies for not focusing on the topic and getting weird on you guys. I am still interested in the questions but am perfectly fine with keeping to the chromosome fusion.

As per your question whether it it is genetics or the image of God, I woud lean towards the latter. I think Genetic studies have shown that our genetic makeup is very similar to even plants and bacteria.

[August]

I'm sorry that I got a bit frustrated. It was more with myself for apparently failing to communicate clearly.

But I had no reason to react the way I did with Zoegirl, and for that, I publicly and unreservedly apologize to her.

The challenge I (and I guess all of us here) face is how to reconcile Scripture with the conclusions reached by contemporary science. We see the options as mentioned on this thread: Progressive creation, Christian evolution, theistic evolution, YEC, OEC etc. I may just be the weird one out, but I am unfortunately someone that questions not only conclusions, but ground motive and assumptions too. That may just be because I am a smart alec by nature, but also because of years of interacting with atheists and understanding that the conclusions depend on our starting points.

My quest is therefore to understand, rationalize, dissect and postulate that which withstands internal and external critiques. Many in contemporary science lean heavily on axioms from those that came before, like the scientific method, without knowing why or where it came from. I venture to leverage critique based on the internal consistency of the axioms, which must be undeniably true and not self-refuting, including Christianity. I also offer external critique based on comparison with my own position. And as you hopefully know, my position is that Christianity is undeniably true because of the impossibility of the contrary. God is necessary and sufficient for all things.

So what we are talking about here involves several dimensions. Let me start with science, and why I seem a little skeptical of the conclusions reached:
1. It is an inductive process. That means it reasons from specific observations and interpretations to universal conclusions. Not only that, within the induction it is also normative in that it isolates purposefully. Biologists largely ignore the physics at play, astronomers largely ignore chemistry etc.
2. The ground motive is methodological naturalism. Anything that cannot be explained naturally is deemed "unscientific". This is an artificial boundary, because we constantly see teleological qualities ascribed to "nature".
3. The practice of modern science has axioms that are not necessarily self-evident. It assumes the reliability of our senses, without being able to prove it. It relies on a consistent and universal belief that the way nature behaves now is the way it always behaved, and we see the consternation that quantum physics caused with that belief.
4. No scientist is neutral. He necessarily imports his beliefs and presuppositions into his work. And that spreads through whole scientific bodies. The denial of tenure to Dr. Gonzalez, and the refusal of scientific journals to publish ID papers are examples of that prejudice.

So what do I affirm? Firstly, there is an objective, true reality that we learn about by the combination of our senses and the testimony or revelation from the Spirit. Science is a valid investigation into creation, and is the fulfillment of God's instruction to live in His creation. Science consists of two major areas...applied science and origins or historical science. There is no question that applied science is a valuable and blessed undertaking which makes life better for all of us. Origins science for me, is where the assumptions of contemporary science start crumbling, and it is obviously more contentious in light of the creation narrative.

I therefore attempt to make logical sense out of Scripture first, since it is the only "eye-witness" account of what happened at creation. I accept the sovereignty of God, meaning that He could have done it any way he saw fit, and that the method is contingent for Him, meaning that He didn't have to do it in a certain way. Creation affirms that He is the start of all things, that He is both the creator and sustainer of the creation, that He is both transcendent and immanent in creation and that without His presence, there will be nothing.

In the context of this discussion then, I maintain that we have some serious issues to address.

Firstly, on what basis do we believe that during creation and in the pre-fall world, creation behaved in the way that it does today? The laws of physics break down, severely, at the time and directly following the big bang, as it does at the quantum level. If that is the most granular level of reality we can postulate, and nature behaves differently at that level, then I believe my question is justified.

Secondly, for us to accept descent with modification (through any process of evolution, guided or random) as a valid explanation for all life and diversity, what are the key assumptions we must make, and are they necessarily axiomatic?

Thirdly, how do we identify the involvement of God in His creation? For every observation, there are two possibilities, nature did it, or God did it. Whether it is by virtue of a process or not, every effect has a cause. Virtual particles in quantum physics apparently have no natural cause, so do does that fit in with our logic and investigation?

I hope this monologue serves to further clarify my approach. You don't have to agree with it, but just be aware that this is a short description of how I see and approach discussions of this nature.

[Canuckster1127]

Thirdly, how do we identify the involvement of God in His creation? For every observation, there are two possibilities, nature did it, or God did it. Whether it is by virtue of a process or not, every effect has a cause. Virtual particles in quantum physics apparently have no natural cause, so do does that fit in with our logic and investigation?

I think the key word above is "apparantly." I think there's danger of falling into a God of the Gaps type of approach if we're not careful. I have every reason to believe that God is the designer and instigator of all we see and can observe. As knowledge increases and "natural" explanations become evident, or at least pushes back the veil some to where we understand another phase in part or whole, we shouldn't be constructing scenarios that put God's presence or work into an all or nothing scenario in order to try and make a point. Far too often that thinking on the part of Christians has served as justification for those observing that God isn't present or involved.

I think there has to be a point where either the data or our ability to perceive and interpret the data will hit a brick wall. That is inevitable given the infinite nature of God and our finiteness. By the same token howeve, that very situation dictates against our being self-aware enough to know exactly where that is.

I'm not sure either, that personifying nature in this manner is productive. Nature is the created order and by definition the one who put that order in place is responsibile for its results.

[zoegirl]

Thanks for the clarification and the apology. Let's chalk it up to a weird miscommunication on both our parts. But how wonderful that as a Christian community we can resolve and stil discuss things.

Firstly, on what basis do we believe that during creation and in the pre-fall world, creation behaved in the way that it does today? The laws of physics break down, severely, at the time and directly following the big bang, as it does at the quantum level. If that is the most granular level of reality we can postulate, and nature behaves differently at that level, then I believe my question is justified.

I absoutely agree that the question is justified, probem is, how could we even know what the effect was? Scripture clearly indicates the creation was affected and groans under the curse. Many assume that the creation was perfect (begs the question, what is perfect?). As you probaby guessed with my barrage of questions , I worry about the presumption that there was no death at all. No human death, I can deal with, but cellular? organ? plant? animal? Many suppose that entropy wasn't in effect. But the fundamental designs or processes of metabolism seem to work under the premise of energy use and energy use under entropy. Even our design for homeostasis with body temperature works under the premise that our muscles ony capture 25-40% of enregy form our food. So I struggle with the idea that either the anatomy and physiology (and the subsequent genes that control and regulate these processes) must have changed so radically or that they were in existence and yet that means they were poor designs. I think YECer's fall into this trap. So many Christian radio programs or books wax poetic about the beautiful designs of orgasnisms and yet they then hold that the creation was so radically different. A common image is the lion. They hold that there weren't carnivores before the fall. Then did they not have the canines? sharp molars? shorter digestive tracts? different eye postiioning? different behavior? thus different brain?s Either they had a different design or you fall into the trap that God created a lion with poor design. If the lion wan't a carnivore, then it should have an herbivore design.

Can we ever know what the creation operated like before the fall? I know that something elemental happened at the fall, but don't know if we could ever establish what this is. I think here we hit upon a major limitation of science. Nor woud I ever think that science could answer this.

Secondly, for us to accept descent with modification (through any process of evolution, guided or random) as a valid explanation for all life and diversity, what are the key assumptions we must make, and are they necessarily axiomatic?

Please elaborate, could you give me some examples? Do you mean assumptions pertaining to God's role? His power? His interference/guidance? Doubt we coud ever answer this with our observations with nature, but obviously scripture would be the major source for answers.

Thirdly, how do we identify the involvement of God in His creation? For every observation, there are two possibilities, nature did it, or God did it. Whether it is by virtue of a process or not, every effect has a cause. Virtual particles in quantum physics apparently have no natural cause, so do does that fit in with our logic and investigation?

Oy, physics is *definitley* not my strong point, so I migh duck and run with *that* part of the question. This may sound like a wimpy answer and may reveal deificits in my understanding quirky philosophical problems, but must these really be the only choices? We accept that God established rules and forces and laws of nature in most of the creation and yet I wonder if the atheistic philosophy has so entrenched biological/origin studies that we can't get past this need to separate the two. For example, when we pick up a book and drop it, do we necessarily think, Gee, was God behind this or was it just gravity? In other words, do we think of these as mutually exclusive posibilities? I would propose that most of us have some idea that God established gravity and He established trustworthy forces within His creation and yet He still sustains and maintians the creation. We have, as a Christian community, never seemed to worry about the question you propose from a practical science standpoint. Every technological and engineering breakthrough, cars, planes, phones, radios, medical breakthroughs comes from a natural assumption that the universe operates on trustworthy forces. We have no problem from a Christian theology accepting that God sustains but also created the universal physical laws and we dont' seem to argue over these (do we see hundreds of books debating this with gravity? nope, but with origins, yes). But somehow when it comes to biological/origin studies, this becomes a huge problem. And yet could it be that God estalished rules and forces for the biological parts of the universe that would be similar to those He established for the physical side and yet still sustain and maintain the creation?

Let me use one other example. Do we think of the deveopment of the planets must have been thorugh direct creation or ccan we suppose that what the scientists see as the best models of the deveopemtn of the planets is simply looking at how God created the planets. With particles of matter coalescing into bigger chunks, etc. Could God have directed this? And yet woudn't He have also been operating within the rules He established?

As to the other parts of your post, I am in agreement...

[zoegirl]

I think the key word above is "apparantly." I think there's danger of falling into a God of the Gaps type of approach if we're not careful. I have every reason to believe that God is the designer and instigator of all we see and can observe. As knowledge increases and "natural" explanations become evident, or at least pushes back the veil some to where we understand another phase in part or whole, we shouldn't be constructing scenarios that put God's presence or work into an all or nothing scenario in order to try and make a point. Far too often that thinking on the part of Christians has served as justification for those observing that God isn't present or involved.

I think there has to be a point where either the data or our ability to perceive and interpret the data will hit a brick wall. That is inevitable given the infinite nature of God and our finiteness. By the same token howeve, that very situation dictates against our being self-aware enough to know exactly where that is.

Nice points. We have fallen into this trap too often. as soon as we establish that the "mystery" bceomes the reason for our belief and that "surely, there can't be a natural cause for this" becomes our defense, we open ourselves up to a huge attack once they find some "natural" reason for somthing happening.

[Gman]

Thirdly, how do we identify the involvement of God in His creation? For every observation, there are two possibilities, nature did it, or God did it. Whether it is by virtue of a process or not, every effect has a cause. Virtual particles in quantum physics apparently have no natural cause, so do does that fit in with our logic and investigation?

Oy, physics is *definitley* not my strong point, so I migh duck and run with *that* part of the question. This may sound like a wimpy answer and may reveal deificits in my understanding quirky philosophical problems, but must these really be the only choices?

Sorry to stick my nose in here but I'm not understanding the response to August's question. I think that the observation is very clear that there are only "two" valid responses as to origins. Either God had a hand in it or he didn't... It's really that simple and I don't think that God would "trick" people into believing something different or give another alternative.

[zoegirl]

Thirdly, how do we identify the involvement of God in His creation? For every observation, there are two possibilities, nature did it, or God did it. Whether it is by virtue of a process or not, every effect has a cause. Virtual particles in quantum physics apparently have no natural cause, so do does that fit in with our logic and investigation?

Oy, physics is *definitley* not my strong point, so I migh duck and run with *that* part of the question. This may sound like a wimpy answer and may reveal deificits in my understanding quirky philosophical problems, but must these really be the only choices?

Sorry to stick my nose in here but I'm not understanding the response to August's question. I think that the observation is very clear that there are only "two" valid responses as to origins. Either God had a hand in it or he didn't... It's really that simple and I don't think that God would "trick" people into believing something different or give another alternative.

Hmm, yes I can see how I could have been misunderstood. I never, ever mean to imply that God didn't do it or is not involved....

hmm...I guess what I am saying here is that we understand that other processes or forces in day to day existence operate under very predictable laws. We understand these predictable events to such great detail that we build bridges with the understanding that God's laws can be trusted and that the bridge will not sudeenly fall down under a stronger force of gravity. We don't necessarily (I hope) say, "Gee, I hope today that God doesn't change the elemental laws of His universe." We live under His universe with order and predcitable governing forces. But these are often called the natural forces or naturalistics processes. We establish and construct models of the universe based upon these laws, postulating how the planets formed based upon these forces, developing models of weather patterns, thinking about how the sun formed and oh an entire host of other things. We also understand from scripture that God sustains and holds together the universe. We have no problem resolving this apparent dichotomy because we know these supposed naturalistic processes...aren't naturalistic processes, there really isn't a dichotomy. We know that God's "hand" is always upon the universe. But if can reconcile this with physical laws, why are we adrift when it comes to biological processes? Is God more or less active when it comes to living systems? I would say neither. He authored creation, He sustains creation. He is a personal God, attentive to His creation... and yet holding to His own established laws and forces.

Did He directly speak into existence the planets and they suddenly appeared? Or did He speak into existence the matter and then direct the matter into the planets, stars, nebulas? Did He directly call into existence DNA and it suddenly appeared? or did He call into existence all of the elements and direct these elements to combine to form DNA....If the latter, then it might *appear* naturalistic....(and how could we even know? it's not as if we can design an experiment with a control universe without God)

Another example, we know that the moelcuels in a cell membrane called phospolipids will "spontaneously" orient together in a way that establishes the membrane. The very character of these moleucles mean that they stay together, especially in our watery cells and cellualr environment. God established these very characteristics, we seen them spontaneously arrange in vitro and a person with a purely naturalistic worldview will call this spontaneous. What do we say is God's role here? We don't exclude Him here, and yet we know that He designed and built these moelcuels so that they do this by their nature. And yet we know that He sustains creation.

Doesn't this harken back to the old adage of someone walking out in front of a bus and then daring to presume that God will save Him by violating His very laws by ceasing basic forces? No one doubts from scripture that He *could* do so, but we understand that He doesn't (any parent with a teenage driver understands this concept! It's not as if they say to them, drive however you want, God will intervene for you! No, they tell them to drive carefully....does this reveal an inherent assumption that God is not involved? That the universe operates under naturalistic processes?)...The very idea of testing God this way is fraught with ridiculous and dangerous principles. And yet are we to limit God's abilities by saying He couldn't have done things in a way that perhaps appears naturalistic?

I guess I am saying how can we even divorce the two? A person with a purely naturalistic worldview still looks at the same universe with the same physical laws. We don't deny these physical laws but we also undesrstand that these laws are prescribed and....overseen (not sure about the word choice) by God.

And it's certainly not as if we can test these ideas. We can't practically say, well, gee my hypothesis is that God controls everything in the universe and He cares for me....if I drink this arsenic and I don't die I'll know that God is a personal God and He controls the universe. My null hypothesis then becomes one of a horrible default, if I die, then God does not exist. God's apparent non-interference does not indicate His non-existence. Or perhaps another way...apparent naturalistic processes do not exclude the presence of a active or personal God.

Did I clear my posistion?

Now I say that God created and sustains everything but possibly He does so in ways that, to a non-believer, may seem naturalistic. If we have no problem with the basics of the physical laws, we do we think that God doesn't operate in a similar manner with living systems?

Any clearer?

[Gman]

Simply put, all matter is energy... When we view the naturalistic world, we really aren't viewing anything solid here just energy. How God manipulates matter or energy I really don't know, but I believe that the science we know and understand today actually dictates to us that it was created divinely, unless you know of someone that has factual proof of Darwinian evolution. This may be a bit off topic but whatever can't become factual for DE actually fuels the case for ID. So the work has already been done for ID.. So let the scientists keep studying DE, what are we so scared about? Because the more they study it, the more I believe it will point to divine creationism. Again, I don't believe that Darwinian evolution nor creationism will probably ever become factual which is why we should let them both breath together as they have been for thousands of years... Why stifle education?

As for miracles, yes, I believe that God performs miracles today and He probably knows the next word I'm going to be typing here. However, if I drink arsenic or jump in front of a car, I believe that I will die because that is my freedom of choice to do it (in other words I'm taking God's naturalistic laws into my own hands). Here is what I believe the catch is to miracles in our own lives.. Miracles can only happen in my life if I "choose" to have faith in God to follow it out. But there is another catch here too, it also has to align with God's will. So in order for miracles to happen, like walking on watter, healing the sick or blind I must receive revelation from God to perform that miraculous action who will then bend his naturalistic laws. So if you want to see a miracle performed today in front of our eyes ask God...

Simple...

[zoegirl]

Simply put, all matter is energy... When we view the naturalistic world, we really aren't viewing anything solid here just energy. How God manipulates matter or energy I really don't know, but I believe that the science we know and understand today actually dictates to us that it was created divinely, unless you know of someone that has factual proof of Darwinian evolution. This may be a bit off topic but whatever can't become factual for DE actually fuels the case for ID. So the work has already been done for ID.. So let the scientists keep studying DE, what are we so scared about? Because the more they study it, the more I believe it will point to divine creationism. Again, I don't believe that Darwinian evolution nor creationism will probably ever become factual which is why we should let them both breath together as they have been for thousands of years... Why stifle education?

As for miracles, yes, I believe that God performs miracles today and He probably knows the next word I'm going to be typing here. However, if I drink arsenic or jump in front of a car, I believe that I will die because that is my freedom of choice to do it (in other words I'm taking God's naturalistic laws into my own hands). Here is what I believe the catch is to miracles in our own lives.. Miracles can only happen in my life if I "choose" to have faith in God to follow it out. But there is another catch here too, it also has to align with God's will. So in order for miracles to happen, like walking on watter, healing the sick or blind I must receive revelation from God to perform that miraculous action who will then bend his naturalistic laws. So if you want to see a miracle performed today in front of our eyes ask God...

Simple...

I don't disagree with anything you say. I certainly don't advocate stifling education or science or experiments. Quite the contrary, for anybody who has followed my posts. I agree that God perfoms miracles and that He has the capability to interfere with His own laws, but I also think all of us have a elemental idea that God allows His creation to work according to the rules and forces He intistuted and yes according to His good will. I think this provides insight, then, into how we can think of the origin. According to His will and to HIs forces and rules that He laid down, the universe was created. And yes ,I agree that to continue to study the creation will point to the creator. Unfortunately, and however you believe this happens, peopla reject God and are blind to His general revelation.