Dale, Rich, and Greg discuss providence and Genesis

(Parenthetically :slightly_smiling_face:…) Hey, Dan @Dan_Eastwood – A biostatistician who believes in providence (I noticed this last night but didn’t remark on it). @Rich_Hampton’s citation above leads you to this “About me” (I wonder what he believes about evolution).

Believe in Providence? Well of course - it’s the capital of Rhode Island! :grin:

2 Likes

You’re so clever. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Sorry but that is not the way i would treat that Scripture. The Bible included this statement in a context for making a different point all together. The author of the statement may have not ever been revealed the physical realities of our solar system. In fact, for him to know these and highlight them in writings could be a distraction from the point God wanted to make thru the prophet. I have mentioned this before, but it would be in the very same light as the weatherman giving the time of sunrise and sunset. So the man is not declaring that the sun revolves around the earth, but something else all together.

Then the Bible has other statements which are matter of fact and pointed directly towards those facts…like creation week. I cannot see a way to twist this to something else.

This is true. But it’s also true that we see the same genotype producing different phenotypes.

No. I am saying the same genotype of a chimp might have the capability to produce something that doesn’t look like a chimp at all in different circumstances.
It’s not clear how much influence development has on how an organism turns out.
If I remember correctly, I have read about whale limb development where similar genes to mammals creates very different limbs because of changes in the development cycle. I will have to search to share details.

That was exactly the point, about context. But you have decided to declare that your interpretation of “yom” in Genesis 1 is infallible. There is a little problem with that that I have mentioned before, too, no twisting involved:

There are multiple uses of the Biblical Hebrew word for an indeterminate period of time, ‘yom’, that period determined solely by context, and only traditionally translated “day” when associated with the six creation periods delineated in Genesis 1. The context in Genesis 1 is unique in all of scripture, the very creation of the universe, space and time itself, and it happened ONCE. A plea to a meaning in another later context is illegitimate.

Did it take God twenty-four hours to create light?

1 Like

Thanks Dale. I agree that yom is somewhat indeterminate…but God seems to have predicted our disagreement on which “yom” this is with the discription “there was morning and evening the (next)day.”

Not sure why the hang up on God creating light in a single day. We are told in Revelation that God’s glory will illuminate the new earth. And for God to create a star instantly, defying all the laws of physics is simpler to Him than me packing a peanut butter sandwich for lunch today. If your suggestion is that the time in which the sun was created may have caused a different type or length of day prior-well that is your opinion and well noted. That model makes God the maker of disease ridden, natural evil infected, survival of the fitest existence before the fall. That makes Gods description of creation as"VERY GOOD" to appear pretty bad. That makes God appear to be like former vp uncle Joe Biden telling long sappy stories with high degree of description that he says are “gods honest truth” when there is not one iota of truth in them. Even if early Genesis was poetry, the essence of it describes a God who created with purpose, distinction, decisiveness, intentionality towards design, and proficiency. Old age evolution to creation models display a God who is hands off, slow, haphazzard, dependent -many opposite traits.

God creating kinds with adaptation qualities shows common grace.

God creating via death ridden survival of the fitest naturalistic evolution and calling this “good” makes Him to look impotent, harsh, lacking of grace and not a very good God at all.

Good grief.

Earth’s morning has long since passed and its day nearly spent. Its evening will be over when the bright Morning Star returns.

@Greg – I posted this to @Ashwin_s in another thread, but it is fitting for you, as well:

If only you would.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.

Knowledge that can be seen by all and is not constrained to the misinterpretation of one word in Genesis 1, a word that means two different things within one verse and then again has a third meaning early in Genesis 2! And YECs think their understanding is infallible. Oh, Lord, when will they learn the damage they are doing. Your patience is amazing.

What is man, that you are mindful of him?!

YECism also belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity, and both speak to the vastness of our God.

Was God short of time that he had create the universe in only 144 hours?

1 Like

@Greg

I like warm and fuzzy baby animals too, but God is not all about warm and fuzzy. Very good does not mean perfect. God had a two creation model in mind from before the first, or haven’t you read. The first was subjected to futility on purpose, from day one, no matter how long that day was.

1 Like

Is the difference in phenotype enough to explain the differences seen between species?

So why can’t one of those results be a human, or an ostrich? What are these circumstances, and where is the evidence?

That’s nonsensical since development is the name of the process leading to how organisms “turn out”.

Current understanding is that it is mutations that cause these differences in embryonic development.

You have to tell me. I am not the biologist here. The more I read biology, the more uncertain things are… Such as the concept of species.
As far as I can see, the concept of species is based on the inability to cross breed and produce viable offspring. Does phenotypic differences fully account for reproductive incompatibility?

No idea… except for the fact that the same genome can produce different phenotypes… For example wasps, bees, ants etc
It can also create huge differences in phenotypes between the larval stage and the adult stage like in butterflies.
And then there is the example of the crayfish.
As far as I can see, how many types of phenotypes a genotype can produce is an open question.
It could be possible for the genotype of the chimpanzee to have possible phenotypic expressions that are very different from a chimpanzee. (Emphasis on “could”)
I have shown you many references for how the same genotype produces different phenotypes.
Is there any reason a chimpanzees genome would be different from that of ants, wasps butterflies etc and be capable of producing only one phenotype?

What is the basis for current understanding? Has the relationship between genes and the development process of even one organism been completely mapped?

The answer is no. Phenotypic plasticity can’t explain the differences between humans and chimps.

I would suggest that you need to get an idea, and then tackle this problem anew.

Much has been learned about the relationship between genes and embryonic development. Homeobox genes are one of the big hitters when it comes to this relationship. I would probably start there:

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/homeobox-genes-and-homeobox

I would hope so. I wasn’t claiming that it can. I was pointing out that the phenomenon exists and the relationship between genotype mad phenotype is not as direct as often assumed.

You didn’t answer my question… you could have just honestly said : no, we are yet to fully map the relationship between genes and the the development process for any organism.

Or better yet, you could have just pointed me to an organisms where this has been mapped (if its done).

We are aware of phenotypic plasticity. What I am talking about is the difference between species.

It hasn’t been fully mapped, but much of it has been mapped. Will you only accept an idea when we have absolute and complete knowledge?

Yes… and the difference would be difference in phenotypes.
I would look at it as a Venn diagram. Two genotypes covering a range of phenotypic possibilities.
And the gap and overlaps between the Venn diagrams would inform us about the differences and even possible similarities.

Not absolute… but sufficient.
Edit : That’s why I asked about one organism. Considering the biodiversity in the planet, what would be a good sample size? 1% of all extant organisms?

You have said yourself that phenotypic plasticity can not explain the difference between species, correct?

Then what is insufficient about our understanding of the relationship between embryonic development and genetics? Did you look at the information on homeobox genes?

Yes… I dont think phenotypic plasticity can explain the difference between species.
But is there evidence for such a position?
Is there some way to truly define the limits of phenotypic plasticity?
After all a caterpillar looks very different from a butterfly.

Haven’t described the process for even one organism.
And there a lot of organisms in the planet.

Will do.

20 posts were split to a new topic: Greg and Dale

16 posts were merged into an existing topic: Greg and Dale