A monomeric though/segement of my worldview: Common Ancestor(s)
I am studying genetics this semester in an attempt to get a minor in biology. Also, in one of my nursing classes, and for clinical, we are studying maternity and care of the mothers and infants. Isn't that ironic, maternity and genetics in the same semester! Anyway......
Of course I can't be suited to just study what the genetics textbook has to tell; I like biology, and my mind has to wander every which direction and think up all kinds of far out stuff. One of these is a thought, or maybe you could call it a hypotheses, that I stumbled across in my daydreaming. If meiosis of DNA results in the joining of individual strands of DNA donated from the gametes of seperately existing organisms, does this indicate that life of all oranisms could not have come from one common ancestor? This would require the existence of at least TWO common ancestors. For evolution to be a valid theory that explains the origin of species, it would have had to simultaneously occur twice in a complementary fasion for life to exist and flourish as we know it. In other words, evolution would have had to result in a male and a female being at the same time - thereby doubly increasing the improbability of it occurence.
Oh, I know, somebody probably already thought of this, but it's the first time I ever considered this concept, and I didn't hear it from someone else. I haven't completely thought this through to its entirety yet, but its one of those thoughts that popped into my head all of a sudden while studying. If this concept has intrigued you, then enjoy your pondering! :-) Tell me, what do you think of this concept?
I can accept part of the theory of evolution, the theory that explains mutations, and how over centuries (not eons) some organism might mutate and as a result survive in their surroundings, but I only to a reasonable extent. Not in the sense of unsound statistics can I accept that theory. So, evolution/mutation of life forms over time? Maybe. As an explanation for an origin of any organism? I doubt it.
An alternative consideration: Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Oh, one more thing....If you are not already familiar with this website, look at the greeting at the top of this page, and you will find instructions on how to reply to this post. However, while I do appreciate everyone's perspective and attempt to approach a philosophical and/or scientific inquiry, any comments with profanity or blasphemy will be edited, abrigded, or outright deleted altogether. Please, do comment though.
Of course I can't be suited to just study what the genetics textbook has to tell; I like biology, and my mind has to wander every which direction and think up all kinds of far out stuff. One of these is a thought, or maybe you could call it a hypotheses, that I stumbled across in my daydreaming. If meiosis of DNA results in the joining of individual strands of DNA donated from the gametes of seperately existing organisms, does this indicate that life of all oranisms could not have come from one common ancestor? This would require the existence of at least TWO common ancestors. For evolution to be a valid theory that explains the origin of species, it would have had to simultaneously occur twice in a complementary fasion for life to exist and flourish as we know it. In other words, evolution would have had to result in a male and a female being at the same time - thereby doubly increasing the improbability of it occurence.
Oh, I know, somebody probably already thought of this, but it's the first time I ever considered this concept, and I didn't hear it from someone else. I haven't completely thought this through to its entirety yet, but its one of those thoughts that popped into my head all of a sudden while studying. If this concept has intrigued you, then enjoy your pondering! :-) Tell me, what do you think of this concept?
I can accept part of the theory of evolution, the theory that explains mutations, and how over centuries (not eons) some organism might mutate and as a result survive in their surroundings, but I only to a reasonable extent. Not in the sense of unsound statistics can I accept that theory. So, evolution/mutation of life forms over time? Maybe. As an explanation for an origin of any organism? I doubt it.
An alternative consideration: Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Oh, one more thing....If you are not already familiar with this website, look at the greeting at the top of this page, and you will find instructions on how to reply to this post. However, while I do appreciate everyone's perspective and attempt to approach a philosophical and/or scientific inquiry, any comments with profanity or blasphemy will be edited, abrigded, or outright deleted altogether. Please, do comment though.
posted by GKStauffer at 02:47
4 Comments:
Dale Stauffer e-mailed this reply
"WOW , MAKES MY HETT BUSS.
I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE CREATED BY AN ALL KNOWING GOD WHO UNDERSTANDS THINGS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE FAINTEST IDEA ABOUT . I BELIEVE AND TRUST IN HIM THAT WHEN HE CREATED US HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING. IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT INTERESTS YOU , ESPECIALLY TO MODEL IT AFTER YOURSELF , WOULDN'T YOU THINK THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD DRUM UP A LOT OF INTEREST AND ESPECIALLY SOME CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES . BELIEF AND TRUST ARE THE TWO ESSENTIAL VALUES THAT CANT BE REPLACED BY MONEY OR THINGS OR ANYTHING ELSE. IF YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT ABSOLUTELY IS NOT TRUE ,BUT YOU BELIEVE, WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER WANT TO CHANGE YOUR MIND UNLESS YOU SUSPECT THAT YOU "MAY BE WRONG ABOUT" WHAT YOU BELIEVE .
I BELIEVE "THAT" PRODUCED A LITTLE PUFF OF SMOKE FROM MY BRAIN !"
Cheryl Miller e-mailed this reply,
"Way to go! I agree.
Ever hear Ken Ham [Answers in Genesis] speak? He has some interesting stuff on this subject that you would appreciate. Also about race. How many races are there anyway? His answer: 1, the Human race. (Did you know it was the evolutionists who introduced & circulated the idea that Noah's son Ham was black?) He was keynote speaker at the homeschool convention last year and he used pictures to show how pigmentation "evolved" into the variety we have today. Perfectly logical. Ask me sometime what he has to say about how Noah fit all those animals in the ark.
Check out his website www.answersingenesis.org If you have time for some light reading, check if your library has "Did Adam Have a Belly Button?" :) For a bit deeper reading material, start with The Answers Book. Wish you could come out and go with us to his Creation Museum next weekend!"
Cheryl Miller replied again,
"More on the subject....
http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html"
Dale Stoltzfus e-mailed this reply:
Sounds logical to me, scientifically challenged though I am. The whole
Creation\evolution debate is really fascinating to me. I really enjoy hearing a good debate by a good creation scientist with an evolutionist. It definitely would take more faith to believe in the theory of evolution when you consider the probabilities of all the DNA just happening to line
up and cooperate to create us. The whole universe is just so orderly
and complex. Someone HAD to create it. Someone a whole lot more intelligent and powerful than I.
When I was in college, I experienced for the first time being taught by someone who was intelligent and could give good reasons for his beliefs who believed in evolution. All my education up to that point had been
in Christian schools. My faith was a little challenged. But I find rest and my mind is settled to believe the Genesis account. I believe that when scientific data and Biblical data are properly interpreted, they will never contradict each other. They have a common Author who never lies! Praise Him!
Post a Comment
<< Home