That’s now what your article said. Your article called it a “mutation.”
Exactly, the scientific data, that which we know, is set within a story, a belief, a myth, an untestable theory that reflects the value system and philosophy, basically materialistic and utilitarian, of our times. Although we may label ourselves as such, mankind is no mutation of some primate.
Mankind’s physical body fits the definition of “primate” – just look at our dentition and fingers/toes, so we are primates by definition. If our physical bodies are not a mutation of an earlier primate, then the God who created us wanted it to appear as if that were so.
Do you believe that the God who created us is deceptive?
It is the definition of our times, an inaccurate understanding of who we are. Ultimately impacting on how treat one another, it will determine our destiny in eternity. It is difficult enough to discern God’s will when we work hard on that relationship, owing to our inherent sinful nature whose default is self-centredness. Realize that it does not appear at all that we are a mutation of an earlier primate, although that is what I saw, as much as anyone else here, because I accepted what was drilled into me since I could understand. That modern society has fallen for a distortion of the truth is readily seen when we place God at the centre of our lives. When we awaken, we cannot be deceived.
The article called it, “no mutation, no evolution.” Big difference.
I don’t claim Lederberg proves that the bacteria gene pool had all the elements preexisting to be penicillin resistant only that his data refutes your claim that there is “ **no experimental data to support it.” Yes, his data does support it.
Moreover contrary to evolution theory, Lederberg shows that no evolution is evidenced in his bacteria experiment.
Now, where is your experimental data supporting evolution?
Realize that you are ignoring the book that God wrote in the world He created. You have five digits on all your limbs, each with a nail, not a claw. You have forward pointing eves for binocular vision. Your dental formula follows the Catarrhine primate formula: 2, 1, 2, 3. Your body is the body of a primate. You will also note that primates tend to have relatively large brains.
Why do you not believe what your creator is telling you about your body and the means He used to create it?
Common design and utilization in the environment is a much better explanation.
These discussions rest on understandings of what constitutes reality. There is an overall world-view that we possess that acts as the context in which these ideas make sense. Unfortunately, an in-depth reply quickly becomes way too lengthy.
Briefly then, many would agree that some 350,000,000 years ago God creates the first creatures with five digits on their limbs. This anatomical structure generally works for birds, reptiles, mammals and we ourselves, whether the creature moves primarily on land, in water or the air. Regardless of the time-frame, when different kinds of animals were created, they were made sharing in that attribute, as they do bones, muscles, lungs, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and nervous systems. The human brain, which is similar to that of apes, is created of a size and configuration that enables us to express the capacities that come with being a human spirit. That we share some of the physical and psychological traits of animals, means that we, like them are constructed of the same substrates. We do not come from animals because we are a different kind of creature, defined by our souls.
Evolution is what we have been taught all our lives, so it makes sense to continue seeing it that way. I get what people are saying, but the evidence points to its not having happened. So, it’s not what our Creator is telling us through science; it is what society is telling us.
Please read these references on the Lederberg Experiment and what it proves (especially the second one, which was written by Lederberg himself.)
I can see how you might think the idea of “mutations were always there” might support the idea that all genetic information for primates was present in the first bacteria. But it doesn’t actually support that strong a claim. All it does is support the claim that random mutations (Lederberg uses the word random) were there before exposure to an environment in which they proved beneficial. To borrow a word from the evolution denying lexicon, these are “micro-mutations”. They are small enough to have occurred randomly. But that does not mean that “macro-mutations” for primates were present in bacteria. To get from bacteria to primates takes many many mutations. The only reasonable way those mutations could be properly cascaded is for some sort of selection process that approves or rejects micro-mutations as they occur. Those were the mutations studied by Lederberg.
Supported with science reference for over a decade now.
I do not claim that the Christian version of ‘human’, complete with soul, evolved. I do claim that the human body (not soul) evolved from earlier non-human primates. Souls did not evolve; bodies did. Adam had a body (nostrils) before God breathed. It is that pre-breath body that I am talking about.
How do I put this? ID is not science. Your ID references are not science. All ID does is to comment on, and misinterpret, work that other scientists do. They do not do their own experiments.
Typically they take a science paper and say, “Look how complex that is. It must have been designed.” That is not science, it is opinion.
ntelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection.
Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI).
The list below provides bibliographic information for a selection of the peer-reviewed scientific publications supportive of intelligent design published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies:
ID is not a scientific theory. It is at best a scientific hypothesis; it does not yet have enough supporting evidence to be a theory.
For example, how can ID theory be falsified? Darwin supplied one for evolution:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
– Origin, Chapter Six
Where is the equivalent statement for the ID hypothesis?
If it could be demonstrated that … ID theory would absolutely break down.
What does ID theory predict that is different from the predictions of evolution? For example, evolution predicts that we will never see a living pegasus, a horse with avian wings. Does ID theory predict that pegasi are possible? We know that humans can design pegasi, what is the ID theory reason why we do not see living pegasi?
How does ID theory explain the origin of intelligence? One of the few properties we can be sure that the Intelligent Designer has is intelligence. Is intelligence complex and specified? If so then the Intelligent Designer requires a meta-designer to design its intelligence. If intelligence is not complex and specified then human intelligence does not require design, since non-CSI things can arise from chance and necessity.
ID has proposed a number of design detection methods. Some have already been shown to be inaccurate. For the others we are awaiting the publication of ID research papers giving the results of double blind tests on those methods and showing that they are accurate.
In 2002 Dr. Dembski proposed a scientific research program for ID: Becoming a Disciplined Science. Where are the research papers published by ID scientists as a result of that program?
Thus far, ID is merely a hypothesis. It has a lot of work to do it it wants to become a theory, in the scientific sense.
Intelligent Design is the best explanation. It’s Biblical.
That fish was an accident. An accident. An acci… OK, I’m done.
I’m not sure there’s an explanation for this. It survived because it survived. Just repeat, over and over, and you still don’t know.