Re: [asa] Introducing Sin (once again)

David Campbell wrote (in another thread):

[quote]
> Single generation speciation can and does occur. It is especially common
in
> plants in which chromosomal duplications can occur.

This happens easily when a hybrid is produced that can reproduce
itself but that can't breed with either parent. As Keith noted, this
is extremely common in plants, but also is known in a wide assortment
of animals. The reproduction may be sexual, if the hybrid is able to
sort the entire set of chromosomes from each parent separately (e.g.,
wheat), or asexual. This is probably the clearest example of
instantaneous speciation; claims that new species do not form without
miraculous help are simply wrong.
[unquote]

OK , now, I admit that doesnt necessarily mean there was a first biological
human. But mightn't it mean a first biological human is *not* ruled out by
a claim of speciation always being a continuous gradual process of small
acumulated mutations? (So point #1 of this thread, even after the
adjustment, seems to be overclaiming a bit.

On the qusetion of was there a first biological being of the race of
humans...

 I am also troubled by, well, Time magazine. Perhaps members here should
write to Time magazine and tell them they were overclaiming when they wrote
all those articles about Lucy having the genes that all humans today are
descended from. Actually Bernie should write that letter to Time and tell
Time they made it all up. His thesis seems to be that there was no Lucy,
instead there are hundreds, maybe thousands of humans we are all descended
from. Lucy was one of a cast of thouands. What implication this might have
for the concept of common descent is left to the reader. Obviously we all
believed Time magazine when we shouldn't have, right? I dunno.

I think a TE could easily say Lucy didn't have a soul (no supervenience)
but Adam did have a soul. But does it matter that Adam was biologically
different from Lucy? If the body is a container for a supervened mind and
soul, there could have been a thousand generations of Adam's race before
Adam was knit together. So it doesn't matter much whether Adam was the
biological first of his race. Once he had a mind - then non-biological
evolution began for his race. He could then have easily actually been the
first. But this is all speculative. I'm just trying to point out that TE
could fit all the facts as we know them.

None of this contravenes Christianity or even Genesis as far as I can
tell. It is, however, the sort of consideration that is toxic to
materialism.

Thanks,
Dave C

PS, the realtionship between a supervened mind of Adam and God is unknown,
but the fall (and existence of sin) could easily have been merely the
severance of relationship between Adam and God within the realm of the
spirit and mind. That is why I think the conversation about sin and biology
is too naive.

PS.PS. I did ask a question about natural selection in the other thread -
I hope it isnt a dumb question. It hasn't been answered yet.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>wrote:

> Bernie
>
> In my mind I was drawing a distinction between human and homo sapiens.
> Fully human would be those that are capable of relating to God and are thus
> created in the image of God. Essentially I would agree that it is very well
> possible that a even a fuzzy boundary seperating homo sapiens from an
> earlier ancestor could not be determined, thus in that sense I agree with
> you but lets hear from the professionals in the field. Of course fuzzy
> boundaries at the microscopic level are the norm in the physical world.
>
> Dave W
>
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to stick to the point 1 in this thread. You are racing ahead,
>> so hold on. We'll get to point 2 if everyone can agree on point 1.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Wallace [mailto:wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:17 PM
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>> Cc: asa
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Introducing Sin (once again)
>>
>> ....
>> Bernie
>>
>> ...Just because biologically it may well not be possible to point to a
>> first human does not mean that at some point in the development of
>> modern humans that God may have decided to reveal himself and establish
>> a special relationship with a human pair or tribe...
>>
>> Dave W
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 7 18:41:23 2009