Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

[Scott J]

UTEOTW, this theory of puctuated equalibrium is not only ridiculous, it is downright comical. To teach that evolution moves slowly for tens or even hundreds of millions of years, and suddenly for no known reason, to speed up astronomically, transforming almost ALL life forms into another type of life form altogether is just plain dumb. To argue that a lack of transitional forms proves evolution is absurd. You are way too intelligent to fall for that.

If this is UTE's position, I have to smile.

I proposed to him earlier that common "descent" may account for the species we see today. That "kinds" with high genetic variability changed rapidly in response to environmental forces- primarily by specialization and a net loss of information thus variability but remaining within and reproducing after, their own kind.

I asserted that we know that adaptation (microevolution) occurs by inherited abilities/weaknesses.

Insects that survive insecticide often are protected by a genetic "weakness". The resulting population didn't evolve upward. It adapted and "descended." There is no reason not to believe that this hasn't been the natural mechanism throughout natural history... except that it doesn't lead to a universal common ancestor but rather that at some point there was a created first "kind"... just the way Genesis says.

UTE scoffed at this as having no proof and no mechanism. Actually, my mechanism as simple and layman-like as it is, works in the natural world around us now. You only have to presuppose that animals "descended" from kinds through a more radical form of the process we currently observe rather than ascending from non-organic chemicals through a process that we never observe in nature.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Yes, I agree with Plain Old Bill. I apologize if it came across like I was calling you a liar."

Look. I was a bit irritated that another poster who blatantly called me a liar a week or two ago, without even hinting at what I was supposed to have lied about, and then repeated the charge for good measure had had the nerve to complain about being called a liar on another thread overnight.

But... I was quite curious why you called me a "master[] at the art of equivocation." I do not think that I have done anything to try and deceive you. You might not accept what I say and I might not be convincing, but that is different from setting out to deceive.

"However, we must be on guard against intellectual snobbery. Many who are educated feel that those who are less educated cannot reason well. This is not always the case. Many cannot afford a higher education but have a great mind. And going to college does not guarantee that a person reasons well."

You are correct. There are many very intelligent people who, for whatever reason, do not know a lot about a particular subject. I don't really know anything about quantum chromodynamics beyond it being a quantum field theory describing the strong force. But even though I am ignorant in that field, it is no reflection on whether I can reason or whether I am intelligent or not.

Most people only know a lot about a very limited bit of subject matter. That is just the way things are. It does not necessarily reflect poorly upon them for not knowing about a particular subject. There are lots of reasons.

But I do think that a bit of elitism is a good thing. For instance, if I am sick, I am going to see a doctor. They have done the necessary study to be the expert.

That is also the same reason that if I need an opinion about biology I go to a biologists and not a lawyer or engineer or physicist.

"You say most of these arguments of mine come from YEs. So what? Isn't the truth what matters?"

I don't criticize your sources necessarily (is that my word for the night?) because they are YE. I criticize them because they misrepresent the facts under discussion. Some may be dishonest and some may be deluded, but their claims never pan out. That is why my acceptance of an old earth gets stronger with every YE argument I see. If they cannot even give an honest presentation of the facts when trying to build a case, it is unlikely that they have a case.

" Even you can surely see how a literal translation of Genesis 1 points to a six day creation. I have asked you numerous times to show how these or any verses in the Bible can point or indicate evolution. But, you have side-stepped this every time and then posted some long evolutionist doctrine that sounds just like it came out of a college textbook."

Of course a literal reading indicates six days. (Well, sort of. I, personally, think that there are enough inconsistancies to make a literal reading unfullfilling without introducing anything else.) But I don't think that the Bible is meant as a book of science. God told us what we needed to know for His purposes. I know more expect to find a description of evolution than I expect to find a description of quantum mechanics. It just was not important enough to reveal in the Bible.

"UTEOTW, this theory of puctuated equalibrium is not only ridiculous, it is downright comical. To teach that evolution moves slowly for tens or even hundreds of millions of years, and suddenly for no known reason, to speed up astronomically, transforming almost ALL life forms into another type of life form altogether is just plain dumb. To argue that a lack of transitional forms proves evolution is absurd. You are way too intelligent to fall for that."

I think that there is still a very fundemental misunderstanding about just what punk eek is. Let's see if I try again if I can do any better.

When we look around the earth what do we observe... That is relevent... Well, we have seen organisms speciate (macroevolution for those in Rio Linda) in modern times. Now, when we do, what kinds of circumstances do we normally see? Well, often it is when some small group gets separated from the rest of the population.

How does that happen? Well, often it is some sort of migration, whether intentional or not. But there can be other reasons. There have been plants in which the number of chromosomes changed from one generation to the next. That small group with a different number of chromosomes is now unable to breed with all the other members of the same species around it. The lack of interfertility can sperate the two populations even as they live amoung one another.

So you get a separated population. Now if this also includes a change in environment, you can introduce new selective pressures. What was once beneficial may no longer be so. Genes that were harmful or just neutrally different may now be useful. The proportions of the various genes in the gene pool will change due to the new pressures.

At is most basic level, this is the definition of evolution. The study of the changes in allele frequency within a population with time. (An allele can be thought of as different versions of the same gene.)

And we have observed quite rapid change this way.

Now let's move to the fossil record. The very first thing we notice about the fossil record is that not many things actually fossilize. It is a rare process.

Now when Darwin was forming his theory, the thought was that most change would be slow and steady. Gradualism ruled the roost. But then we started digging up fossils.

We suddenly found that gradualism was not the rule but the exception. The horse is a great example. Early on, there were few specimens and a gradual series was layered over the few known fossils. But then more started coming in. You might go a million years and only see some changes to teeth and then in a short time two or three new lineages would sprout up with rapid change in different directions. They might get bigger and then smaller. Fewer ribs and then more ribs. They kept three toes for a while and then one lineage starts shrinking the two side toes and there is another explosion in change.

In essence, the horse series was so detailed that you could see how the process worked. It was jerky. It would have periods of slow change and periods of rapid change. It was very bushy with many side branches that eventually died out. It was anything bu gradual.

Now there are other series where we can see these same kinds of fine scale transitions. Enough to know they do happen.

But when we look at the fossil record, it becomes apparent that finding tiny changes within a species is the exception rather than the rule. We instead find a lot of changes at, say, the genus level, but just not so many at the species level or within a species.

Combine the three. The lack of fossils recording changes within a species with the rapid change that is observed in the fossils when you do have such changes preserved and with the rapid changes that are seen when you can observe speciation. Mix in the rarity of the fossilozation process and you have your answer. The process just does not record and sufficient detail to get the tiny changes.

But the changes you do get are no that broad. The rapid changes that get lost may be things like the mouth going from two molars to three. Or the size changing from 30 lbs to 40 lbs. It is not like you are mising huge changes. We aren't making jumps like here is a lizard and there is a bird...Sorry there is nothing in between.

Now to be fair, the further back in time you go and the more difficult the organism is to fossilize, there bigger the gaps will be. But even back to things like the change from fish to amphibians, there are many species at many stages of transition.

And the rapid change that can occur should not be a mystery at this point. There is a diversity in the gene pool for an organism. The frequency of a particular gene depends on the niche the organism inhabits. If that niche changes, the frequency of the various genes will change as well. This change in frequency of different genes leads to the change in the species itself.

"This last article and other posts of mine I have shown quotes from famous and prominent evolutionists admitting that there is no REAL transitional record."

I am still looking for convincing quotes...

From guys who really are scientists in a relevent field...

Who actually accept evolution...

And with enough context provided so that we know that how they are being quoted is how they intended their meaning.

 

[UTEOTW]

"UTE scoffed at this as having no proof and no mechanism."

It still has no mechanism.

For common descent, I can and have pointed you to examples of new information being generated through natural processes which lead to new genes and new functions and new traits and new pathways. Here is a thread that shows how the genome bears the marks of being produced through mutation, mostly duplication and subsequent mutation.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html

You cannot tell me just how you had original kinds that mangaged to have "high genetic diversity" when there are just two of each kind. There could be at most four different alleles of each gene. We see far more than that for many genes.

You cannot tell me what kind of observations you would expect to make if your theory were true which would allow for differentation from the standard biological model.

I can tell you what kinds of things I would expect. The thread to which I just linked gives examples of finding just the kinds of things you would expect if common descent were true.

SO tell us what you would expect to see for your theory. And no broad strokes. Detailed, testable predictions that differ from evolution. And while you're at it, try explaining the things we do see.

But I am still interested in finishing the Vitamin C discussion we had going.

"For argument's sake, let's say that all the primate ancestors and man once inhabited a very small area and shared a common diet. Let's say that one of the staples in that diet was infected with a disease that eventually drove it into extinction but not before becoming a critical factor in the mutation shared by primates."

Do you have a single example of a disease which can target a specific DNA location and target it for a single nucleotide deletion in the same place repeatedly. Preferrably one that can infect many different species. But not to many of course, since we are limited to primates specifically.

Once you provide such a disease, we will then worry about the possibility of this disease striking a germ line cell in a member of each and every species which is used for reproduction subsequently and then which is selected to be passed on to all members of the gene pool of each and every one of the primate species.

But I want to instead move on to something else.

Ohta, Y. and Nishikimi, M. (1999) "Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidiase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbind acid biosynthesis." Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1472: 408-411.

Go look this puppy up and you will find something interesting. Remember how I keep telling you that there are certain expectations that one would have if life was made by common descent and another if it was a common, recent, individual designer? You know, I keep asking for you to make your own predictions about what YOU would expect from different types of evidence if the common designer argument were true. And you keep ignoring.

Well, here goes another. If your scenario were true, what would one expect to see? Well, once a gene is deactivated, it no longer has any selective pressure upon it and will randomly mutate. Now if all of these species were felled by an unfortunate weakness that no animal that is not a primate fell victim to, they would have all started accumulating random mutations at the same time. Today, they would all have about the same amount of difference between them.

If they shared the pseudogene because of a common ancestor, however, there would be less difference between recently diverged animals and more difference between those that diverged in the more distant past.

So what do we see?

Well, when the disabled gene was compared between apes and monkeys, the differences were found to coincide with how recently it is thought that their ancestors diverged. For instance, humans were closer to chimps and a little more distant from orangutan and yet more distant from monkeys.

Your disease theory has a new challenge to meet. And it is not going to be easy.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"UTE scoffed at this as having no proof and no mechanism."

It still has no mechanism.

Neither does punctuated equillibrium. Neither does abiogenesis. Neither does the supposed process that leads to entirely new species and biological systems.

What we observe is adaptation. It is an extrapolation not suggested by the evidence but rather necessitated by the philosophy of naturalism that leads to the conclusion that species evolved from lower forms to higher ones.

For common descent, I can and have pointed you to examples of new information being generated through natural processes which lead to new genes and new functions and new traits and new pathways.

And I can and have pointed out to you that the examples are chock full of assumptions where there should be processes that are repeatable in the lab. You have not shown that any creature has gained greater genetic complexity than its ancestors much less has become a new, more highly developed species.

All you have shown is in perfect agreement with my argument. That there is variability inherited from the parents. It may be less now than in the past but it was inherited and did not arise from the process supposed for macroevolution.

You cannot tell me just how you had original kinds that mangaged to have "high genetic diversity" when there are just two of each kind. There could be at most four different alleles of each gene. We see far more than that for many genes.

Yes I can. Naturalism as a limitation on God's creative genius is FALSE.

All of your examples presuppose naturalism. I reject that presupposition and have told you that many, many times. It is unproven, unproveable, and philosophical in nature... Naturalism isn't scientific much less the definition of science.

You cannot tell me what kind of observations you would expect to make if your theory were true which would allow for differentation from the standard biological model.

Even as a novice... this is not true. I would look for species that descended from a kind that can interbreed, some that can't, and some that can't without problems (mule).

I would look for greater variation between similar and related animals in the past. That is what we see. I would look for more fixed genomes now. That is what we see. I would look for the species descended from the kind to appear together and not generally intermingled within the fossil record. That is what we see.

I would look for mutations to generally be neutral or harmful. That is what we see. At best, I would look for mutation to be a "zero sum game". Where a mutation provides a benefit it is offset elsewhere. That is what we see. I would look for more simple organisms to change less and have a longer history than more complex organisms. That is also what we see.

I would not look for natural processes to lead to new systems. We don't see them arising anywhere but in the imaginative explanation of the fossil record by evolutionists.

SO tell us what you would expect to see for your theory. And no broad strokes.

Give me the billions wasted on trying to prove evolution... and I will do just that.

Someone once "broad brushed" punctuated equillibrium then sent thousands if not millions of ambitious young ants scrambling to provide the proof so they could get published and promoted. Give me those resources and people with a determined allegiance to my philosophy like the one demonstrated by evolutionists to naturalism... and their explanations will be every bit as plausible and coherent as those you like to point to.

Detailed, testable predictions that differ from evolution.

Evolution is detailed... because imagination knows few limits. However, it is not testable nor falsifiable.

But I am still interested in finishing the Vitamin C discussion we had going.

I am not interested in engaging in any conversation where you demand that I accept your naturalistic presuppositions.

I gave you answers. You scoffed but the answers were "possible". That is all I have to do since that is all evolutionists do. The things are very much testable and in fact consistent with the data. If a mutation can happen once in one species, it can happen again in any number of species. Statistically, it is no less likely that many would have it than one would have it... especially if my ideas about kinds and non-uniformitarian natural history are true.

Before you even try to object, evolutionists make assumptions about both of these things then apply the data to those assumptions. That is not proof.

Do you have a single example of a disease which can target a specific DNA location and target it for a single nucleotide deletion in the same place repeatedly. Preferrably one that can infect many different species. But not to many of course, since we are limited to primates specifically.

Do have a single example of a species developing a whole new biological system under actual observation?

Once you provide such a disease,

One thing here. I only suggested a disease. It could have been any of a number of things. Further, I never said that the disease would attack a particular area.

It could be that the species' reaction to a disease, bacteria, change in environment, etc. caused the opening. That makes it a side effect, not the primary event.

Further, if I am right about greater genetic variability in the past, it would only stand to reason that these kinds of events and mutations would be more common. Thanks for pointing me to another case where my idea predicts what we see.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Neither does punctuated equillibrium."

But it does have mechanism.

There is diversity in the gene pool of a population. For a given set of conditions, some genes will be favorable and become more common. Some will be unfavorable and therefore less common. Still others will be largely neutral and can vary in how widespread they are in the population. Furthermore, there are ongoing mutations with every generation, increasing the genetic diversity. Some of these will be unquestionably harmful and will be quickly weeded out. But others will have the same mix of favorable, unfavorable and neutral as the other genes.

Now even during periods of relative stasis, the new variations being introduced can lead to some slow change. But when conditions change, so does the distribution of genes within the population. The old characterizations of which were favorable or not will be different. Evolution will occur as the distribution of the genes change.

Now this can occur very rapidly. I have given some examples recently of how quickly such changing pressures can lead to visible changes within a population. I'll briefly mention another. Go look up the work of Peter Grant and his studies of how quickly populations change in the wild when pressures change. He can document measurable change in just a single year.

"Neither does the supposed process that leads to entirely new species and biological systems."

Again, it does. It is basically mutation and selection.

Perhaps the most important part of the mutation step is duplication. This gives new genetic material which can evolve while the old gene, or the new copy, remains as is doing its old job.

Did you read the thread I linked for that shows how the patterns observed in the genomes of life carry a record of these duplications and subsequent mutation? I guess not since you are still making the same claim and have not addressed the data that contradicts your assertions.

"And I can and have pointed out to you that the examples are chock full of assumptions where there should be processes that are repeatable in the lab. You have not shown that any creature has gained greater genetic complexity than its ancestors much less has become a new, more highly developed species."

Another link you either did not follow or decided to ignore if you did. Go back up there and find it. It shows new genes from both the lab and the wild that give organisms new functions.

Ute said "You cannot tell me just how you had original kinds that mangaged to have "high genetic diversity" when there are just two of each kind. There could be at most four different alleles of each gene. We see far more than that for many genes. "

"Yes I can. Naturalism as a limitation on God's creative genius is FALSE."

This is a most unresponsive answer.

It requires no assumptions. You look at genetics. You see that each gene is carried on a chromosome. (Yes, in some organisms there are exceptions.) We each get a copy of each chromosome from each parent. So there can be two copies of each gene in an individual. You have a mating pair, you can now have four copies of a given gene.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that each representative of his "kind" that got on the ark had been selected because the pair gave the greatest genetic variability. In other words, between the two of them they carried all four possibilities of every gene.

Now, we observe that there are many more than four verions of many alleles. Where did they come from? They are needed for the kind concept to be able to produce the variety that we see around us.

You have effectively ruled out that mutation and natural selection could provide the necessary raw material. It would gut your arguement completely.

So I guess your only answer here is that you are proposing a God of the Gaps approach. God repeatedly stepped in and added more and useful genes to all the various kinds so that they could diversify.

"Even as a novice... this is not true. I would look for species that descended from a kind that can interbreed, some that can't, and some that can't without problems (mule)."

So you are an interbreeding kind of guy when it comes to defining "kinds." This is basically a measure of gnetic homology. Then why do different "kinds" continue down the same path of slowly diverging genetic homology as within the "kind?" Should there not be a marked line between the kinds?

"I would look for greater variation between similar and related animals in the past."

I thought you claimed above that natural selection removes diversity. You are contradicting yourself.

"I would look for more fixed genomes now. That is what we see."

Please explain how we see that now and how you measure that in the past.

"I would look for the species descended from the kind to appear together and not generally intermingled within the fossil record. That is what we see."

Now you are just making stuff up. All "kinds" were alledgedly created at the same time. So all "kinds" should appear at the same time and diversify together. It is evolution that would predict that you would not find certain organisms in the same temporal local but that you should not be surprised to see very closely related organisms sharing the same temporal location.

"That is what we see. At best, I would look for mutation to be a "zero sum game". Where a mutation provides a benefit it is offset elsewhere."

You have been provided documented changes in the past where mutations are benficial with no obvious opportunity cost so this observation is not met.

"I would not look for natural processes to lead to new systems. We don't see them arising anywhere but in the imaginative explanation of the fossil record by evolutionists."

Again, examples have been provided showing new systems evolving.

"Evolution is detailed... because imagination knows few limits. However, it is not testable nor falsifiable."

Sure it is. Again examples have been presented in the past.

I have used the atavistic whale legs as material a lot lately. A good test that would falsify evolution would be to find a pattern of atavisms where the atavistic part is not something that the ancestor would have been expected to posses under the theory of evolution.

"I am not interested in engaging in any conversation where you demand that I accept your naturalistic presuppositions."

Very poor job of dodging the question.

The observation is that the disabled gene involved in the manufacture of vitamin C shows a progressive amoun of difference when comparing sequences between humans and other primates. The changing measure of difference agrees with what is expected based on other evidence for the common descent of man with the other apes.

Do you have a reason this should be so?

"The things are very much testable and in fact consistent with the data."

I have repeatedly given you examples of different types of data. I have given you examples of what form the data should appear with the "kinds" concept and with common descent. I have then shown you what we actually observe.

I have repeatedly asked you to take the same examples and either accept my predictions or to make your own and give the basis. You steadfastly refuse.

The vitamin C gene offers another chance. If the mutation was a separate occurance in different primate "kinds" then you should see that each lineage collected mutations such that the gene in each lineage has diverged approximately an equal distance from each other. If common descent is true, then you should observe that more closely related species have less divergance than more distantly related species.

To what do you object?

the observations are consistent with the common descent expectations and not the "kinds" expectations.

"One thing here. I only suggested a disease. It could have been any of a number of things. Further, I never said that the disease would attack a particular area."

You do not have to suggest a particular area. They all share a deletion at the same location. The observation commands a specific location.

But fine, not a disease. Give me an example of anything that would be expected to cause a single nucleotide deletion at a single specific location in the genome of all primates and not a single other "kind."

 

[UTEOTW]

ScottJ said "UTE scoffed at this as having no proof and no mechanism."

Ute responded "It still has no mechanism."


"Neither does abiogenesis."

Well here is an abundance of recent material.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15556408&query_hl=1
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/20/12733
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/science/bkup_of_RNA.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15217990&query_hl=4

That will get you started. Next, you might want to go to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Here are the results you get if you search with "origin of life". I got 153 hits. The second one was

Shelley D. Copley, Eric Smith, and Harold J. Morowitz, A mechanism for the association of amino acids with their codons and the origin of the genetic code, PNAS 2005 102: 4442-4447.

That one sounds intruiging. I am sure you can find other keywords to search under that will yield more information of how they think it all got started.

Once through with that, I have some more papers for you to look up and go through. I'll organize them by topic for you.

A) Composition of the early atmosphere

Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka
2003 “Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical
aspects” Icarus 164, 149-162 (2003).

Holland, Heinrich D.
1984 The Chemical Evolution of the Atmoshphere and Oceans, Princeton Series in
Geochemistry Princeton University Press

Holland, Heinrich D.
1999 “When did the Earth’s atmosphere become oxic? A Reply.” The Geochemical
News #100: 20-22 (see Ohmoto 1997 )

Kasting, J. F., J. L. Siefert,
2002 “Life and the Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere” Science 296:1066

Pepin, R. O.
1997 Evolution of Earth's Noble Gases: Consequences of Assuming Hydrodynamic Loss
Driven by Giant Impact Icarus 126, 148-156 (1997).

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei
2003 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma
oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, online 6 December 03

B) Formation of the first organic molecules

Amend, J. P. , E. L. Shock
1998 “Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in Hydrothermal Ecosystems” Science
Volume 281, number 5383, Issue of 11 Sep , pp. 1659-1662.

Blank, J.G. Gregory H. Miller, Michael J. Ahrens, Randall E. Winans
2001 “Experimental shock chemistry of aqueous amino acid solutions and the cometary
delivery of prebiotic compounds” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere
31(1-2):15-51, Feb-Apr

Chyba, Christopher F., Paul J. Thomas, Leigh Brookshaw, Carl Sagan
1990 "Cometary Delivery of Organic Molecules to the Early Earth" Science Vol.
249:366-373

Engel, Michael H., Bartholomew Nagy,
1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison
Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Matthews CN.
1992 Hydrogen cyanide polymerization: a preferred cosmochemical pathway. J. Br.
Interplanet Soc. 45(1):43-8

Schoonen, Martin A. A., Yong Xu
2001 “Nitrogen Reduction Under Hydrothrmal Vent Conditions: Implications for the
Prebiotic Synthesis of C-H-O-N Compounds” Astrobiology 1:133-142

Miller, Stanley L.,
1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science
vol. 117:528-529

Miller, Stanley, Harold C. Urey
1959 “Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth” Science vol 139 Num 3370:
254-251

Weber AL.
1997 Prebiotic amino acid thioester synthesis: thiol-dependent amino acid synthesis from
formose substrates (formaldehyde and glycolaldehyde) and ammonia. Origins of Life and
Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 259-270.

Cooper, George, Novelle Kimmich, Warren Belisle, Josh Sarinana, Katrina Brabham,
Laurence Garrel
2001 Carbonaceous meteorites as a source of sugar-related organic compounds for the
early Earth Nature 414, 879 - 883 (20 Dec 2001) Letters to Nature

Cody, George D., Nabil Z. Boctor, Timothy R. Filley, Robert M. Hazen, James H. Scott,
Anurag Sharma, Hatten S. Yoder Jr.
2000 “Primordial Carbonylated Iron-Sulfur Compounds and the Synthesis of Pyruvate”
Science v.289 : 1337-1340

Sephton, Mark A.
2001 Meteoritics: Life's sweet beginnings? Nature 414, 857 - 858 (20 Dec ) News and
Views

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)

Lazcano, Antonio, Stanley L. Miller
1996 “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World,
and Time” Cell vol 85:793-798

Nelson, K. E., M. Levy, S. L. Miller
2000 “Peptide nucleic acids rather than RNA may have been the first genetic molecule”
PNAS-USA v.97, 3868-3871

Fuller, W. D., Sanchez, R. A. & Orgel, L. E. Studies in prebiotic synthesis. VI. Synthesis
of purine nucleosides. J. Mol. Biol. 67, 25-33 (1972).

Robertson, MP, Miller SL.
1995 An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil. Nature 375, 772 - 774 ()

Nelson K.E., Robertson M.P., Levy M, Miller S.L.
2001 Concentration by evaporation and the prebiotic synthesis of cytosine. Orig Life
Evol Biosph Jun;31(3):221-229

Deamer, D. W., and Pashley, R. M.
1989. Amphiphilic components of carbonaceous meteorites. Orig. Life Evol. Biosphere
19:21-33.

Krishnamurthy, R., Pitsch, S. & Arrhenius, G. 1999 Mineral induced formation of
pentose-2,4-bisphosphates. Origins Life Evol. Biosph. 29, 139-152 ().

Dworkin, Jason P., David W. Deamer, Scott A. Sandford, and Louis J. Allamandola
2001 “Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated
interstellar/precometary ices” PNAS 98: 815-819

Pizzarello, Sandra, Yongsong Huang, Luann Becker, Robert J. Poreda, Ronald A.
Nieman, George Cooper, Michael Williams
2001 “The Organic Content of the Tagish Lake Meteorite” Science, Vol. 293, Issue 5538,
2236-2239, September 21, 2001

Segre' D., Ben-Eli D. Deamer D. and Lancet D.
2001 “The Lipid World” Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 31, 119-145.

C) More complex molecules / proto-life

Martin M. Hanczyc, Shelly M. Fujikawa, and Jack W. Szostak
2003 Experimental Models of Primitive Cellular Compartments: Encapsulation, Growth,
and Division Science October 24; 302: 618-622. (in Reports)

D.W. Deamer
1997 "The First Living Systems - A Bioenergetic Perspective", ; Microbiology and
Molecular Biology Reviews, 61(2): 239; June

Chakrabarti, A.C., R.R. Breaker, G.F. Joyce, & D.W. Deamer
1994 Production of RNA by a Polymerase Protein Encapsulated within Phospho-Lipid
Vesicles Journal of Molecular Evolution 39(6): 555-559 ( December)

Khvorova A, Kwak YG, Tamkun M, Majerfeld I, Yarus M.
1999. RNAs that bind and change the permeability of phospholipid membranes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences USA 96:10649-10654.

Yarus M.
1999. Boundaries for an RNA world. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 3:260-267.

Walter P, Keenan R, Scmitz U.
2000. SRP-Where the RNA and membrane worlds meet. Science 287:1212-1213.

Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S.,
1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances
in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.

Service, RF,
1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.

Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 François Ménard, J. H. Hough, Motohide
Tamura and Jeremy Bailey
2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy,
1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison
Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart
Clark, François Ménard, and Motohide Tamura
1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular
Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports)

Chyba, Christopher F.
1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997)

Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko
1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison
meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature

Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross-inhibition in the
synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495

Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K,
Ghadiri MR,
2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator",
Nature 409: 797-51, Feb

Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K,
2002 “Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives” J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011

Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J.
1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system.
Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50.

Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend.
2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for
biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May
8):5487.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)

Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber
2004 Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts Science Vol 303, Issue 5661:
1151, 20 February 2004

Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE. (1996 May 2). Synthesis of long prebiotic
oligomers on mineral surfaces [see comments] Nature, 381, 59-61.

Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, Ghadri MR.
1996 “A self-replicating peptide.” Nature Aug 8;382(6591):525-8

A.C. Chakrabarti, R.R. Breaker, G.F. Joyce, & D.W. Deamer
1994 Production of RNA by a Polymerase Protein Encapsulated within Phospho-Lipid
Vesicles Journal of Molecular Evolution 39(6): 555-559 (1994 December)

Smith, J.V.
Biochemical evolution. I. Polymerization on internal, organophilic silica surfaces of
dealuminated zeolites and feldspars Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 95(7): 3370-3375; March 31, 1998

Smith, J.V., Arnold, F.P., Parsons, I., Lee, M.R.
Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic silica-rich surfaces, crystal-
hemical modeling, formation of first cells, and geological clues Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96(7): 3479-3485; March
30, 1999

Blochl, Elisabeth, Martin Keller, Gunter Wächtershäuser , Karl Otto Stetter
1992 “Reactions depending on iron sulfide and linking geochemistry with biochemistry”
PNAS-USA v.89: 8117-8120

Dyall, Sabrina D., Patricia J. Johnson
2000 “Origins of hydrogenosomes and mitochondria: evolution and organelle biogensis.”
Current Opinion in Microbiology 3:404-411

Huber, Claudia, Gunter Wächtershäuser
1998 “Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces:
Implications for the Origin of Life” Science v.281: 670-672

Imai, E., Honda, H., Hatori, K., Brack, A. and Matsuno, K.
1999 “Elongation of oligopeptides in a simulated submarine hydrothermal system“
Science 283(5403):831–833.

Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR,
1997 Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self- replication through a hypercyclic network.
Nature, 390: 591-4

 

[Scott J]

UTE, List the ones that have been recreated in lab experiments that simulate anything like any possible natural condition for which we have direct evidence of ever having existed on earth.

Now you have established that there has to be proof. They have to provide iron clad mechanisms for all of these things. Mere speculation is not good enough.

That's right. The same demand that you made that supposedly destroys my position works for these smart people too. The fact that they can couch their suppositions and unproven assumptions in technical jargon doesn't mean that they present any kind of substantial proof.

They are sitting in the same place I am... only having said alot more words to get there.

 

[Scott J]

I have actually seen some of those things referenced before. The deep sea thermals I think have actually been widely dismissed by evolutionists last time I heard.

The hope that meteors are the original source of dna requires more faith than simply acknowledging that God did it.

Like I said, show the test that goes from non-organic chemicals to coded dna in the lab simulating realistic natural conditions. Remember, the "left-handed" molecule problem has to be solved. There has to be a purely natural, unguided process by which a pure sample of significant quantity can be produced and maintained sufficient time for enough random interactions to produce dna... with happenstance coding.

 

[Johnv]

I said it before, but I think it bears repeating:


I place more faith in the Bible than my own interpretation of the Bible.

I place more faith in my own inerpretations of the Bible than my own interpretations of science.

I place more faith in the Bible than science.

I place more faith in science than my own interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Scott J]

The problem there John is that there seems to be a motivation to interpret Genesis in acceptance of naturalism and evolution as fact.

The writers of the NT cited Genesis as history, not allegory. I have yet to find anyone from the non-literal side that cited a biblical reason from the passage itself or the remainder of the scripture to support the idea of allegory. A non-literal interpretation is only necessary if you presuppose that it cannot be true as written by some other standard of "truth".

I still contend that if God is the author of the Bible and He wrote the creation/flood accounts as allegory without indicating that to us then allowed His followers for all but the last 150 years of recorded history to believe it was a historical account... that can be classified as nothing but a lie.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I have yet to find anyone from the non-literal side that cited a biblical reason from the passage itself or the remainder of the scripture to support the idea of allegory.

Allow me to refresh your memory. I've discussed this in threads you were taking part in before. So have others.

Here's some posts from threads that provide what you've asked for (I realize that you were only an active poster in some of them; some others where we discussed this are no longer available on the board):
</font>

• Contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 if taken literally</font>
• More about the form of Genesis 1 and 2</font>
• Contextual evidence that some parts of Genesis aren't literal</font>
• The genre of Genesis 1</font>
• Exodus 20:11 and the institution of ordinances</font>
• Looking at NT references to creation and the flood</font>
• A mini-essay on the issue</font>

 

[UTEOTW]

Why does the pattern of mutations in disabled primate vitamin C gene support common descent?

Please tell us what kind of pattern you would expect to see in the accumulated mutations in that gene after the disabling deletion and why you would expect that.

"I have actually seen some of those things referenced before. The deep sea thermals I think have actually been widely dismissed by evolutionists last time I heard."

Good. Glad you have seen some of them before. Curious that you would claim that no mechanisms are proposed for abiogenesis, however, if you have seen some of these before. Maybe you forgot.

I think that there was only one or two references listed about thermal vents. I am unsure if they really have been dismissed, perhaps so. But they still could be important as areas in which organic molecules were synthesized. For example, lipids would be needed for early cell membranes. There are simple clays which will naturally assumble a mixture of lipids and RNA into vacuoles with the RNA inside.

"The hope that meteors are the original source of dna requires more faith than simply acknowledging that God did it.
"

I do not remember posting any claims that DNA was delivered by meteorites.

Now there are a few references dealing with meteorites and other spaced based articles. But these have to do with the observation that organic molecules have been observed both coming from space and in space itself with a non-racemized mixture of stereoisomers.

"Like I said, show the test that goes from non-organic chemicals to coded dna in the lab simulating realistic natural conditions."

Follow the references above. Taken together, they give plausible mechanisms which are able to go from compounds to DNA. There are many steps along the way and DNA seems to come along well after you have what can be safely considered to be "life."

"Remember, the "left-handed" molecule problem has to be solved."

Quite a few references deal with that issue. You have already noticed the ones dealing with molecules from space. But there are also other methods listed which catalyze the formation of a particular stereoisomer. Here are some of them.

Service, RF, 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.

Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross-inhibition in the synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495

Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K, Ghadiri MR, 2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator", Nature 409: 797-51, Feb

Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K, 2002 “Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011

Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J. 1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system. Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50.

Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend. 2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May 8):5487.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A. 2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)

Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber 2004 Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts Science Vol 303, Issue 5661:
1151, 20 February 2004

"There has to be a purely natural, unguided process by which a pure sample of significant quantity can be produced and maintained sufficient time for enough random interactions to produce dna... with happenstance coding."

Again, go through the references. Many common materials such as clays and borates have been found to both catalyze and stabilize the important compounds. Look and you will see plausible mechanism for making RNA and its bases from common materials and common catalysts. There have been plenty of studies showing how RNA can perform the functions that DNA and proteins do today separately. In fact, there are still RNA molecules out there in some living organisms that perform these functions. Perhaps they are vestiges all the way from the time before DNA.

"UTE, List the ones that have been recreated in lab experiments that simulate anything like any possible natural condition for which we have direct evidence of ever having existed on earth."

If you look at the references near the top of the list, you should see some that where you can use geological evidence to get a very good idea of what kinds of conditions existed on the early earth.

"Now you have established that there has to be proof. They have to provide iron clad mechanisms for all of these things. Mere speculation is not good enough."

I don't thinkI have every asked for "proof."

What I have asked for are plausible mechanisms that can be tested and which will provide a different set of expectations for the observations in the world around us than what would be expected if common descent were true. Speculation is fine, but it needs to then be supported. I have given you many examples of what I feel would be logical expectations for the evidence if recently created "kinds" were the correct answer. You have not tried to show me where either I can find these expectations observed or where my expectations are incorrect. Just like the vitamin C example. I have given you what would be expected based on YE and common descent. You have not challenged my expectations not shown where they can be observed nor countered with oyur own expectations.

The unfortunate thing about abiogenesis is that you are limited to testing different theories to see if they are plausible. But you may end up with multiple plausible theories and no surviving data to help you decide. At least with multiple possible avenues, you can rule out the naysayers who say it is impossible. On the other hand, in the coming centuries, we may get lucky and find that Titan or Europa or Mars or somewhere else in solar system got to some stage of prebiotic chemistry and stalled. This would allow us to examine the results from an actual system although there are no guarantees that our planet followed the same path.

Finally, even though you cannot direct study the actual process for abiogenesis on earth, there is a fantastic record of what has happened since so there is no reason to cast any doubt upon evolution.

 

[Scott J]

Good. Glad you have seen some of them before. Curious that you would claim that no mechanisms are proposed for abiogenesis, however, if you have seen some of these before. Maybe you forgot.

My mechanisms have every bit as much proof as those listed... as does the notion that the tooth fairy delivers dimes in exchange for teeth.

The unfortunate thing about abiogenesis is that you are limited to testing different theories to see if they are plausible.

The unfortunate thing about common descent is that you are limited to testing to see if it is plausible... which it is by what we observe in the nature of adaptation.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Mercury:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
I have yet to find anyone from the non-literal side that cited a biblical reason from the passage itself or the remainder of the scripture to support the idea of allegory.

Allow me to refresh your memory. I've discussed this in threads you were taking part in before. So have others.

Here's some posts from threads that provide what you've asked for (I realize that you were only an active poster in some of them; some others where we discussed this are no longer available on the board):
</font>

• Contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 if taken literally</font>
• More about the form of Genesis 1 and 2</font>
• Contextual evidence that some parts of Genesis aren't literal</font>
• The genre of Genesis 1</font>
• Exodus 20:11 and the institution of ordinances</font>
• Looking at NT references to creation and the flood</font>
• A mini-essay on the issue</font>

</font>[/QUOTE]Just briefly, the discrepancies between Genesis 1 & 2 is a terribly forced argument. Contextually, it fits that ch 2 is a detailed account that transitions to the fall and also establishes man's special position in creation.

Arguments about genre depend on human theories concerning literature to judge inspired texts that the NT writers treat as history. IOW's, it is refuted by internal evidence from the Bible.

I read your argument about "contextual evidence" concerning Genesis 1 and didn't see anything valid whatsoever. In fact, you even tried to associate the account with a passage in Revelation that wasn't even written in the same language.

You think that the fact that the Sun was said to rule over the day or that there is symmetry proves that the account is not literal? That's an incredible stretch. Especially considering that you think evolution is consistent with Genesis even though the Genesis account establishes very punctuated division between the days... and also is out of order according to evolution.

 

[Scott J]

Just like the vitamin C example. I have given you what would be expected based on YE and common descent. You have not challenged my expectations not shown where they can be observed nor countered with oyur own expectations.

That is simply untrue UTE.

 

[Scott J]

Well, here goes another. If your scenario were true, what would one expect to see? Well, once a gene is deactivated, it no longer has any selective pressure upon it and will randomly mutate. Now if all of these species were felled by an unfortunate weakness that no animal that is not a primate fell victim to, they would have all started accumulating random mutations at the same time. Today, they would all have about the same amount of difference between them.

1) I haven't said that no apes or even all apes don't have a common ancestor.

Because the Bible says that man was a special direct creation I believe it but I have not claimed to know what the original kinds were nor which species that exist today are directly related to one another.

2) I haven't proposed that the mutations occurred at the same time.

3) Your supposition that all of these species will accummulate random mutations at the same rate is not based in fact nor evidence. The truth is that mutation rates may be radically different for different species over time. And before you object... my speculation is no less founded than your presupposition of a uniformatarian model of convenience.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Just briefly, the discrepancies between Genesis 1 & 2 is a terribly forced argument. Contextually, it fits that ch 2 is a detailed account that transitions to the fall and also establishes man's special position in creation.

Yes, that is very brief. So brief that it doesn't in any way explain the apparent discrepancies in the order of events between the two accounts.

I read your argument about "contextual evidence" concerning Genesis 1 and didn't see anything valid whatsoever.

I am glad that you are now at least acknowledging the existence of these arguments. That's progress.

In fact, you even tried to associate the account with a passage in Revelation that wasn't even written in the same language.

So it is your claim that ways of writing and genres of literature are bound to a particular language? Would you also say that the genres of portions of Scripture change when the Bible is translated? Does a Greek parable turn into a historical account when read in English? Not one of the similarities I listed between Genesis 1 and parts of Revelation were dependent on which language they were recorded in.

Anyway, you disagree that the account of the seven days in Genesis 1 is similar to the accounts of the seven seals, seven trumpets and seven bowls in Revelation. In your opinion, what portion of Scripture has a form or structure (not necessarily content) most similar to Genesis 1? From your response so far, I assume you'll want to limit this to passages written in Hebrew.

You think that the fact that the Sun was said to rule over the day or that there is symmetry proves that the account is not literal? That's an incredible stretch.

No, I did not say that. That the sun is spoken of as ruling merely shows that Genesis 1 contains non-literal language. It does not show the entire account is non-literal. (Unlike some, I do not buy into the argument that if a portion is taken figuratively, the whole must be taken figuratively.)

The symmetry is one piece of evidence; it is convincing because the symmetry is only present when a subset of God's creation is in view. If one were to add all the rest of God's creation (bacteria, seaweed, angels, hell, etc.) the symmetry as presented in Genesis 1 would no longer be present. This is evidence that the symmetry is due to how the author arranged the account, and not due to a pattern in how God actually created (any such pattern would still be evident when all of creation was in view). Of course, symmetry is only one of over a half-dozen reasons I presented. Taken together, I think they make a case that is hard to ignore for anyone willing to allow the text to influence their interpretation.

Especially considering that you think evolution is consistent with Genesis even though the Genesis account establishes very punctuated division between the days... and also is out of order according to evolution.

Yes, and also out of order when Genesis 1 is compared to Genesis 2. You seem to have me confused with someone who holds to the day-age view where the days are lined up with geological ages. My view is that the framework of days is how the author chose to present God's creation work that surpasses human understanding. It is not a historical order. This is similar to how Matthew and Luke both chose to present Jesus' temptation in their own way, and comparing the two we see two different orders. At least one of them didn't use the chronological order. That doesn't mean at least one of them is wrong; it does show that inspired authors of Scripture can use literary arrangement to present their material.

 

[Marcia]

There is a difference between poetic language and symbolic language. They can be combined, but not necessarily. To say the sun "rules" over the day is poetic but it is nothing like the highly symbolic language of Revelation.

Also, I do not see the apocalyptic language or construct of revelation in Genesis. Why would God tell us about creation in narrative form, as though he's telling us facts, if it's really all just symbolic? Reading Gen. is like reading an account of something that happened. So God just did that to fool us?

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Marcia:
There is a difference between poetic language and symbolic language. They can be combined, but not necessarily. To say the sun "rules" over the day is poetic but it is nothing like the highly symbolic language of Revelation.

Agreed. I haven't used the statement about the sun to connect Genesis 1 with Revelation. Here are the actual connections I made:

Probably the closest literary parallel to this section [Genesis 1:1-2:3] is Revelation 6 and 8:1-5 which describe the seven seals. One account uses a framework of days, the other uses a framework of seals. Both accounts use a repeated phrase to introduce the seven items (the phrase varies slightly on the first and seventh days, and all but the second through fourth seals). Both accounts set off the seventh item as special. Both accounts portray God's actions from his dwelling place (through speech or through the breaking of seals on a document) as dramatically affecting our world. Both describe events that had not been witnessed by humans at the time of writing (John witnessed the vision, but not the actual events). In both accounts, the degree of literal description is highly debated.

Genesis 1 reads unlike any historical account in the entire Bible -- totally unlike the style of Samuel/Kings or Acts, for instance. The closest parallel to the seven day account of creation would be the accounts of the seven seals, trumpets and bowls in Revelation. It is no more crucial to think that God's acts of creation occurred over literal days than to think that God's wrath will be poured out of literal bowls.

Originally posted by Marcia:
Also, I do not see the apocalyptic language or construct of revelation in Genesis.

I purposely did not use the phrase "apocalyptic language" since that term has many definitions, and many limit it to descriptions of destruction and decreation. The wider definitions that can encompass passages like Revelation 21 can also encompass Genesis 1. As for the construct of revelation, how do you think a human being came to write of the beginnings of the universe if not through divine inspiration and revelation? Genesis 1 fits the pattern of God revealing things not (yet) witnessed by humans in ways that are more literary than literal (just like Revelation, descriptions of God himself, and descriptions of heaven).

Why would God tell us about creation in narrative form, as though he's telling us facts, if it's really all just symbolic?

First off, "just symbolic" is backwards. If something is literal, then it may be just literal. If it is symbolic, it is necessarily more than a plain literal meaning.

Anyway, why would Jesus reveal a vision to John of God's wrath being poured out of bowls if the bowls are really symbolic of something else? It's only a problem if we focus on the wrong things, ignore the message, and treat every part of the Bible as if it were an eyewitness historical account.

Reading Gen. is like reading an account of something that happened. So God just did that to fool us?

Did God fool us by inspiring authors of Scripture to speak of thinking with their heart or their kidneys? Until science showed otherwise, those statements were taken literally.

If we read Genesis carefully, there are many things that reveal what kinds of accounts it contains. People realized that Genesis was more than a plain historical account long before there were scientific reasons to do so. It's mainly our modern preoccupation with facts, figures and science that causes many to read Genesis as though it is no different than Acts, in spite of the huge differences in how each is written. This is also a reason why many dismiss much of the Old Testament's poetry as having less value than the rest, even though the poetic third is disproportionately quoted in the New Testament. God was not limited to inspiring literal historical accounts to give us his word.

 

[Mercury]

Marcia, I'd also be interested in your answer to the same question I asked Scott. If you disagree that the closest parallel to the form of Genesis 1 is the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation, which other portion of Scripture do you think is a better parallel? To be clear, I'm speaking of form and structure, not the closest parallel of the content of Genesis 1.