Christians a few tips in your daily walk

[Spud]

Spud,

Torridon, You're right, bacteria evolve from preexisting bacteria. They would already be present in the bath tub.

Like TW, you seem entirely unable to grasp that the origin of life itself and speciation are entirely different things, and that evolution is only relevant to the latter.

If you really want to parade your ignorance here could you at least try to identify your target before taking fire?

Hi Hills,
I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.

[DaveM]

Why don't you lot take an early bath.Evolution is the height of insanity.

 ~TW~

Early bath?

No evolution isn't the height of insanity.

It makes more sense to a lot of people, than God creating women out of ribs and the devil running around burying dinosaur bones to confuse everyone.

 

The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.  Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women)    So Moses got it right.  I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??

Time to leave! 

[Maeght]

Spud,

Torridon, You're right, bacteria evolve from preexisting bacteria. They would already be present in the bath tub.

Like TW, you seem entirely unable to grasp that the origin of life itself and speciation are entirely different things, and that evolution is only relevant to the latter.

If you really want to parade your ignorance here could you at least try to identify your target before taking fire?

Hi Hills,
I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.

What, you mean inaccurately?

[floo]

Why don't you lot take an early bath.Evolution is the height of insanity.

 ~TW~

Early bath?

No evolution isn't the height of insanity.

It makes more sense to a lot of people, than God creating women out of ribs and the devil running around burying dinosaur bones to confuse everyone.

 

The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.  Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women)    So Moses got it right.  I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??

Time to leave!

Why did the deity have to use one of Adam's ribs to create the female of the species, surely it could have created her without the need to rip out one of his ribs? Another daft Biblical story which makes no sense whatsoever!

[jeremyp]

The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.

Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?

Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women)    So Moses got it right.  I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??

Nobody because Moses almost certainly never existed. He certainly didn't write the book of Genesis.

[DaveM]

The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.

Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?

https://news.usc.edu/68485/rib-regeneration-studied-in-mammals/

[jeremyp]

The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.

Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?

https://news.usc.edu/68485/rib-regeneration-studied-in-mammals/

That's a long way from regenerating entire ribs.

[DaveM]

The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.

Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?

https://news.usc.edu/68485/rib-regeneration-studied-in-mammals/

That's a long way from regenerating entire ribs.

Well I doubt God needed more than a small fragment. But I thought it was clear that mine was a tongue in cheek post, not one intended to spark a long debate of attrition.  So I shall leave it at that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.  Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women)    So Moses got it right.  I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??

Time to leave!

Good innit, hindsight bias. Makes you wonder why "He" didn't tell Moses about the liver instead as that regenerates much more quickly.

On a similar intellectual level, have you ever noticed that fusilli pasta IS EXACTLY THE SAME SHAPE AS DNA!!!!!!

Now if that's not proof positive of the flying spaghetti monster I don't what is 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Yo Spud,

I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.

Depends what you mean by "goo". If you mean a living organism then the fact of evolution is readily explicable by its theory. If though you meant instead non-living matter then any discussion of evolution is entirely irrelevant.

That's the point. Start with living organisms and we can discuss how evolution works. Start with something else though and evolution is no more relevant that architecture is relevant to Morris dancing and we need to have a different discussion entirely (about abiogenesis). 

TW will never grasp the difference but - naively perhaps - I have a cock-eyed optimism that you might do.

Tell me you're not going to disappoint me here...

...are you?
 

[2Corrie]

Yo Spud,

I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.

Depends what you mean by "goo". If you mean a living organism then the fact of evolution is readily explicable by its theory. If though you meant instead non-living matter then any discussion of evolution is entirely irrelevant.

That's the point. Start with living organisms and we can discuss how evolution works. Start with something else though and evolution is no more relevant that architecture is relevant to Morris dancing and we need to have a different discussion entirely (about abiogenesis). 

TW will never grasp the difference but - naively perhaps - I have a cock-eyed optimism that you might do.

Tell me you're not going to disappoint me here...

...are you?
 

These educationalists disagree with you

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01

Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'

http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156

[Maeght]

The word evolution has a number of definitions of course - something unfortunately common in English which can lead to confusion. This can be made worse when discussing science when terms are used and it is assumed that other scientists understand the meaning due to the context. Two different meanings are

a) Biology change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

b) any process of formation or growth; development

The scientific theories/hypotheses regarding the origins of live and the changes in existing life forms are separate, but of course the more is learnt about one part of the overall evolution from non-living matter through to the vast number of different species we now see the more this gives indications about the other - hence the phrase 'Many lines of evidence help illuminate the origin of life'. The links provided do discuss this so hopefully were read rather than just picked due to the headlines. When discussing the science it is important to be clear and accurate as to whether we are discussing the origins of life, Abiogenesis, or changes which take place in existing life forms.The latter is normally what is meant when referring to Evolution. Perhaps biological evolution would be a better term.

There is no generally accepted model of the process that could lead to the emergence of life - as is said in one of the links - whereas the theory covering biological evolution, and speciation, are robust and very well supported by evidence. The lack of an accepted model for abiogenesis does not cast doubt on biological evolution and attempting to use this as an argument is a common ploy. Hence the need to be clear and accurate when using the word evolution.

[Leonard James]

Hence the need to be clear and accurate when using the word evolution.

Sadly, many religious types ignore both clarity and accuracy if either disagrees with the robotic programmes they have been indoctrinated with.

[DaveM]

DaveM,

The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.  Otherwise Adam (men) would have ended up with one less set of ribs than Eve (women)    So Moses got it right.  I wonder who told him this fascinating medical fact??

Time to leave!

Good innit, hindsight bias. Makes you wonder why "He" didn't tell Moses about the liver instead as that regenerates much more quickly.

Well I appreciate that you write He with a capital H, even though enclosed with apostrophes.

Maybe He did tell Moses. He certainly told him many things (Lev 1:1) including some health practices which were invaluable for the time and environment of Moses' day.

Oh and He also told Abraham to follow that much maligned practice of circumcising his male offspring. Specifically on the eighth day of life when bleeding is at a minimum as the levels of vitamin K and prothombin are at a peak.  Abraham clearly knew his haematology.  And today the WHO is engaged in a massive program with a target of achieving 20 million male circumcisions in Africa by the end of next year.  All in the interest of public health. 

[torridon]

Yo Spud,

I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.

Depends what you mean by "goo". If you mean a living organism then the fact of evolution is readily explicable by its theory. If though you meant instead non-living matter then any discussion of evolution is entirely irrelevant.

That's the point. Start with living organisms and we can discuss how evolution works. Start with something else though and evolution is no more relevant that architecture is relevant to Morris dancing and we need to have a different discussion entirely (about abiogenesis). 

TW will never grasp the difference but - naively perhaps - I have a cock-eyed optimism that you might do.

Tell me you're not going to disappoint me here...

...are you?
 

These educationalists disagree with you

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01

Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'

http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156

This is a case of evolution within language.  The concept of evolution that was first understood in a strict sense in biology has wide application in a looser sense, meaning development over time.  The nature of research in the field of biogenesis is sufficiently distinct to merit its own name currently however there are striking parallels in organic chemistry in the ways that carbon compounds become increasingly complex over time, replacing simpler antecedant forms, gradually becoming more and more life-like in the process.  There is, at this boundary, no clear cut division between life and non-life, more there is a spectrum of lifelikeness. As our understanding grows and different branches of science develop interconnections, the vocabulary we use has to move to reflect that and perhaps biogenesis research will come to be regarded under the umbrella term Evolutionary Theory eventually; likewise evolutionary theory itself will come to be subsumed under the even broader term Theory of Everything.

[Gordon]

Oh and He also told Abraham to follow that much maligned practice of circumcising his male offspring. Specifically on the eighth day of life when bleeding is at a minimum as the levels of vitamin K and prothombin are at a peak.  Abraham clearly knew his haematology.   

I suspect it is more the case of simple trial and error, Dave, when even back in antiquity it was noticed by those who insisted on the ritual barbarism of routinely chopping bits of otherwise healthy flesh from every baby boy, that if they waited a week or so there would be less bleeding - Abraham, if such a person actually existed, would have no idea about the biochemistry of blood coagulation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yo Spud,

I originally meant 'evolve' in the sense that TW means it, ie 'goo-to-you' evolution, for want of a better phrase.

Depends what you mean by "goo". If you mean a living organism then the fact of evolution is readily explicable by its theory. If though you meant instead non-living matter then any discussion of evolution is entirely irrelevant.

That's the point. Start with living organisms and we can discuss how evolution works. Start with something else though and evolution is no more relevant that architecture is relevant to Morris dancing and we need to have a different discussion entirely (about abiogenesis). 

TW will never grasp the difference but - naively perhaps - I have a cock-eyed optimism that you might do.

Tell me you're not going to disappoint me here...

...are you?
 

These educationalists disagree with you

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01

Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'

http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156

This is a case of evolution within language.  The concept of evolution that was first understood in a strict sense in biology has wide application in a looser sense, meaning development over time.

These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.

[torridon]

These educationalists disagree with you

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01

Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'

http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156

This is a case of evolution within language.  The concept of evolution that was first understood in a strict sense in biology has wide application in a looser sense, meaning development over time.

These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.

Eerm, ''universal darwinianism'' ? Sounds like a term drawn from the vocabulary of a conspiracy theorist to me.

That aside, I don't see the need to be too precious over terms like 'evolve' as human language is notoriously imprecise and flexible; many terms are used sometimes with narrow definition, in other contexts with broader definition.  I might say the language you use today has 'evolved' from ancestor languages, such as latin and greek and german; those in turn have 'evolved' from earlier languages, Indo-European etc. The concepts of inheritance and nested hierachies hold good in the study of human languages. The parallels with biological evolution are sufficient to justify the use of that term in general.  And after all, the well studied and well documented particularities of biological evolution are a particular manifestation of deeper underlying principles.  Just as Newton was later realised to be a particular case of Einstein, we are now coming to see biology as a particular, rather messy, case of physics.

[Outrider]

These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.

If by 'Darwinism' you mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, it doesn't really respond in any way to 'encouragement', it's a conceptual description of natural processes. That's a little like saying that poetic language like 'falling in love' will encourage gravity.

O.

[floo]

The interesting aspect of the Genesis account of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is that I understand that rib bones can regenerate themselves.

Really? Can you provide any reliable evidence that supports this factoid?

https://news.usc.edu/68485/rib-regeneration-studied-in-mammals/

That's a long way from regenerating entire ribs.

Well I doubt God needed more than a small fragment. But I thought it was clear that mine was a tongue in cheek post, not one intended to spark a long debate of attrition.  So I shall leave it at that.

If the deity created Adam, it surely had all the bits and pieces readily available, so didn't need to carve the poor guy up! It looks like the deity screwed up again!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.

If by 'Darwinism' you mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, it doesn't really respond in any way to 'encouragement', it's a conceptual description of natural processes. That's a little like saying that poetic language like 'falling in love' will encourage gravity.

O.

Non sequitur.

I was commenting that Torridon's suggestion, that the use of the term evolution to describe any change proceeds from the Darwinian notion of evolution, was fallacious and encourages other fallacies such as universal darwinianism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

2Corrie,

These educationalists disagree with you

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01

Even the Royal Society coins the phrase 'evolutionary theory of the origin of life'

http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156

No they don't. Others have addressed this already, but Darwin's theory of evolution concerns only changes in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. DNA specifically is needed for it to operate. You can also use the term "evolution" analogously - ideas can "evolve" for example - just as, say, political parties can "give birth" to other parties, icebergs "calve" etc but that's a different matter.

Clearly TW and Spud have been confused about the biological use of the term, not about its analogous use in other contexts. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

Oh and He also told Abraham to follow that much maligned practice of circumcising his male offspring.

Well, a book says that "He" did (a very different thing) but ok.

Specifically on the eighth day of life when bleeding is at a minimum as the levels of vitamin K and prothombin are at a peak.  Abraham clearly knew his haematology.

No he didn't. All he could have known from observation was that bleeding is at a minimum on the eighth day but there's no reason to suppose that he knew the first thing about haemotology, any more than someone who learnt to avoid eating certain mushrooms would thereby be a toxicologist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderbus,

These two concepts are separate. To conflate the two is fallacious and merely encourages ''universal darwinianism''.

Not really. Darwin's theory of evolution is specific to biological systems, but you can sometimes apply its general principles analogously to non-biological phenomena.   

[DaveM]

Well I appreciate that you write He with a capital H, even though enclosed with apostrophes.

Maybe He did tell Moses. He certainly told him many things (Lev 1:1) including some health practices which were invaluable for the time and environment of Moses' day.

Oh and He also told Abraham to follow that much maligned practice of circumcising his male offspring. Specifically on the eighth day of life when bleeding is at a minimum as the levels of vitamin K and prothombin are at a peak.  Abraham clearly knew his haematology.  And today the WHO is engaged in a massive program with a target of achieving 20 million male circumcisions in Africa by the end of next year.  All in the interest of public health.

As expected a number of negative responses to my comments on Abraham and circumcision. 

But a deafening silence as regards the WHO actively following a program to carry out this 'barbaric' practice on 20 million men in Africa.