I misspoke or said it wrong...I meant more about creativity..power to create...etc. That's what is meant when you hear Jews and Christians (in particular) speak of the "Image of God." Not that God is confined to a physical body or physical capacity and thus we're given physical form as well.
it blows my mind that 46% of americans believe God created humans in their present form, and we wonder why we can't figure out things like our economy.
don't know if you missed my additional entry but do you consider spiders, beavers, birds,etc, creative?
I'm not arguing the point...I'm just stating what Christians/Jews believe when they talk/read about mankind being created in the image of God.
There is a lot of new research on this subject since the Human Genome project and I am not an expert and I don't have time to go into it much of it but many geneticist don't even like the term "junk DNA" anymore. Here is an article with some information about it. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna&page=2 Just to put it in simple terms. The concept of Evolution as being a process where genetic mutations and natural selection drive the development and persistence of traits isn't quite clear cut. Certain traits may be expressed or persist without changes to the genetic code. The expression and persistence of any particular trait isn't just a matter of changes to the genetic code. Just to be clear none of this is an argument for Intelligent Design or some supernatural agency but more a better understanding in how the genetics works.
It muddies it in terms of how you are looking at speciation based on upon an adaptive selection of traits. A dog and a wolf have very different traits but are essentially the same species. The classic view would be that selective pressures would eventually cause the populations of dogs and wolves because of beneficial traits for each of their environmental niches to eventually diverge from each other into new species. What we have with dogs and wolves is the expression of radically different traits from pretty much the same genome to the point that they are classified as two separate species.
This is what is confusing me about what you're saying. An inherent idea in evolution is that you end up with different versions of species i.e. Darwins finches because of unique traits. A dog and a wolf having different traits expressed from the same genome is nothing new, it is exactly what evolution states will happen. You are saying these things like they are novel. Please link me to where you're getting this from because I seriously don't get what you are trying to express.
What I am differentiating is between talking about traits versus genetics. If we talk about traits then a chihuaha and a timber wolf are different species if we talk about genetics they are the same. It's fairly simple. The classic view of evolution was that DNA is subject to mutations and those mutations end up being expressed as traits. For any given organism in any given environment these traits are either beneficial, harmful, or neutral. In the case of harmful mutations the selective pressures of adapting to any given environment would likely lead to that mutation being weeded out of the population. For the mutations that proved helpful then that mutation would be passed on. IN the case of Darwin's finches the idea is that one common finch ancestor population splits up into different environmental niches and each group has some members who have a beneficial mutation that helps them thrive in each one of those niches so eventually they differentiate to being different species. For a long time these type of changes were considered to be primarily determined by genetic changes, such as that different beak type in finches were from changes in genetics due to mutation. Junk DNA was considered as either relics left over for things that were no longer needed or were neutral mutations just cluttering up the genome. What we are finding out though is that junk DNA is anything but and that within that DNA are switches that both help to regulate other DNA controlling traits but also can be activated and deactivated in response to environmental and other factors. What that means is that environmental factors leading to beneficial adaptions isn't just a matter of beneficial mutations to the genetic code but a matter of how the genome is working. So just looking at the expression of traits like beak shape of finches isn't necessarily a sign of changes in the genetic code of finches. The long beaked finch and the short beaked finch genetically might be the same species even though they express different traits. Why I brought this up isn't arguing against Evolution but just pointing out that the basic model of mutations to the genetic code lead to different traits with beneficial ones leading to new species isn't quite that simple. The expression of traits, in complex organisms is far more complex than just changing the genetic code.
And what I've been trying to tell you repeatedly is that no one, including me, ever said that mutation always lead to new genes or genes disappearing. Mutations can very well lead to dormant genes being turned off or on. The differnece in the finches beaks IS a change in which genes are being expressed. That comes from which oporational DNA components are active, which is decided by the genome. There is absolutely nothing novel about what you just posted but you keep saying this has been freshly discovered. Believe me, I know that different genes are turned on and off, in each of us as we speak, in response to our environment. That does not change the genetic makeup of your sperm or a females eggs. As far as how this applies to evolution, I really need you to show me where you are getting that environmental things, don't try to explain it again, just link me.
Epigenetics. The phenotype can change without changing the genotype via methylation of DNA, histone modification, etc. can all affect what genes are expressed and the changes can even be heritable. Environmental factors, including hormones, diet, and other stimuli. Look into rats mothers licking their offspring and bees and nutrition, etc.. It's a fascinating field. A lot of the horribly-named junk DNA is regulatory, regulating gene expression post-transcriptionally (look into Dicer and siRNA). Again, fascinating field.
Yes, I believe in evolution. I think creationism is a poor man's way to spiritually graft onto tenets of his faith that have come into question by the facts around them. If your faith's that God made you and thinks you're super awesome is so weak, then 'proving' God to you won't matter. Or at least that's what The Book said when I read it. Lamarckism Something similar to what you were trying to say: epigenesis, where studies like you are what your mother ate while preggers and how your environment determines your exposed traits come into play. I spent a bit of time on this in college many moons ago, and all I know now offhand is that the studies and discoveries going on now is happening even more rapidly. Someone told me that the helper RNA plays a larger role in genetics than previously thought. When I studied that crap, they were considered transcribers.
I was upset with the injection of "God" into the poll choice by Gallup. What about the other gods and great spirits, or the non-theist option? Purposefully catering toward a demographic to skew poll results. So does the outcome of the poll imply a strong belief in fate over free-will?
Well . . using the term 'GOD' can be more like using it as god. The generic I think like 75-90% of religious folx are monotheistic . . . Rocket River
It takes a lot of "faith" to believe creatures as complex as human beings evolved from single cell organisms.
Only if you don't understand evolution and the time scales involved. Are you a YEC? Also, interesting usage of irony quotes around faith. I think you unintentionally got it right as no faith is required.
Seriously....evolution just happens. Details in the how is debatable, but there's no doubt all living things are slowly (and sometimes rapidly) changing on a genetic to survive under their current environment. I'm not sure why one would need faith-for or even worship a process, but people have worshipped inanimate objects and abstractions, so it's not that far fetched to consider.
They don't do it to survive. Genetic mutations just happens. Good ones stick around, bad ones slowly die off. Some changes are not good, but aren't bad enough to effect survival, so they stick around also like color blindness.
