Ridiculous Reproductive Principle--A Testable Hypothesis

[B. John Jones]

The following notion seems ridiculous but I'd be willing to bet it's true (everything that works in the source text seems ridiculous).

 

Gen 30:29-43 illustrates how Abraham's grandson, Jacob, became filthy rich by raising and reproducing flocks of lambs and goats through thoroughbred, rocket-like, reproductive stature. His method, if proven, defies all pseudonyms of the common notion of natural selection. It illustrates how a community of related organisms, having something predominant in common (however ridiculous), will strengthen exponentially. This is the total truth about true biological evolution. (This entire principle is first introduced in Gen10:1-9 [Tower of Babel])

 

Don't challenge it. Test it.

 

Aside: This is also why the Bible-based Christian church has continued, and will through the very end.

Edited May 30, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Daecon]

Test what, exactly? What method are you referring to? I hope this has nothing to do with striped sticks.

[Robittybob1]

Test what, exactly? What method are you referring to? I hope this has nothing to do with striped sticks.

It has and you remember how much bother these Biblical verses caused me. I'll pass thanks.

[ajb]

It is not clear what you want to test, and so how you would test it.

 

What is true is that animal and plant selective breeding is very old, it must go back to our very early farming. Maybe even before that with the domestication of dogs. It is not suprising that people at the time of Jacob had reasonable knowledge of artifical selection, but they of course had no idea of the mechanisms.

[B. John Jones]

How about an ant farm, taken well care of, with proper lighting, next to a gigantic stuffed ant, and a copy of Henry Ford's autobiography so they can see it?

[ajb]

How about an ant farm, taken well care of, with proper lighting, next to a gigantic stuffed ant, and a copy of Henry Ford's autobiography so they can see it?

What about it? What do you expect would happen? Maybe you could yourself make some initial tests and observations.

[B. John Jones]

How about an ant farm, taken well care of, with proper lighting, next to a gigantic stuffed ant, and a copy of Henry Ford's autobiography so they can see it?

 

 

What about it? What do you expect would happen? Maybe you could yourself make some initial tests and observations.

That's what Jacob did. Do it. See how fast they develop. This is your controlled population. In your uncontrolled population, remove the stuffed ant and the book. Keep everything else the same. See how fast the test population produces and reproduces during half a normal lifetime of an ant colony. The expectation is the controlled group will excel.

Edited May 30, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

That's what Jacob did. Do it. See how fast they develop. This is your controlled population. In your uncontrolled population, remove the stuffed ant and the book. Keep everything else the same. See how fast the test population produces and reproduces during half a normal lifetime of an ant colony.

Well, as it is your claim, you can test it... or look into what others have done.

 

It sounds like a basic experiment you could do. However, careful controlls are needed. You would be better off with several populations and then you can try to average things, thus removing or miminising other effects. Get to the pet shop and let us know what you find...

[B. John Jones]

I already know it works. For me it would be time wasted. Considering the time you guys have spent challenging Biblical notions, I would think you'd have the guts to prove this wrong if you thought you could. I trust the human written testimony of Moses and the cloud of written testimonies following his, in this case. Human testimony is valid evidence in any court of law. It holds up in every institution of government. Scripture has been counted as axiom during many periods of history, far prior to modern science. The burden of proof is on the scientific community. I'm not a member of the scientific community. I am a member of the Bible believing Christian church, those believing the written testimony of Jesus of Nazareth, by his followers and apostles. You say evolution of species or organisms occurs due to survival of the fittest. I reject that. I don't reject the scientific community. I embrace them. But if the scientific community gets to write a false script, I'm testifying here, that community will stumble and fall, irreparably. And if God is true, then let the church of the Islands of Hawaii, sweep the nations.

 

Bye.

[ajb]

I already know it works.

You have evidence, or you 'just know'?

 

 

 

It looks like you 'just know'... no science to discuss here if you are not willing to discuss science.

 

Anyway, you have the notion of burden of proof all backwards. As you have made claims, you should be the one to offer evidence, or at least more than 'cos the bible says so'.

[Daecon]

Why do the people with religious agendas always think that it's a contest between Christianity vs. Science? It's not.

 

If you somehow "disprove" science, Christianity doesn't win by default. You still need to disprove all of the other religions as well. And even then you still need to prove Christianity.

 

It's a contest between Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam vs Hinduism vs Sikhism vs Buddhism vs etc. etc.

 

Win that contest first, then you can go on to challenge science.

[Strange]

 

 

That's what Jacob did. Do it. See how fast they develop. This is your controlled population. In your uncontrolled population, remove the stuffed ant and the book. Keep everything else the same. See how fast the test population produces and reproduces during half a normal lifetime of an ant colony. The expectation is the controlled group will excel.

 

 

This sounds like a version of Lamarckian inheritance, which has been shown not to work. Also, if such a system did work, don't you think that it would be in use after millennia of breeding of plants and animals?

 

Also: burden of proof. Your hypothesis, you need to provide evidence.

[B. John Jones]

 

 

This sounds like a version of Lamarckian inheritance, which has been shown not to work. Also, if such a system did work, don't you think that it would be in use after millennia of breeding of plants and animals?

 

Also: burden of proof. Your hypothesis, you need to provide evidence.

 

I'm just a representative from those who have heard from those who walked and talked with Christ; a representative from those who believe their written testimony. That testimony is axiom. The scientific community opposes it. You're not responsible, but it IS your community's burden of proof. If you fail, you've failed conclusively.

Edited May 30, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

The Bible is not a scientific source or evidence for anything other than that people wrote some stories down.

Unless the tone of the op changes and some evidence is presented this thread will close.

I'd suggest Strange's suggestion above as a starting point.

Do not reply to this Modnote.

[John Cuthber]

 

That testimony is axiom.

If it's an axiom, you can't test it.

So you have just pointed out, quite clearly that

(1) you don't understand how science works and

(2) that this thread is pointless.

[Strange]

 

I'm just a representative from those who have heard from those who walked and talked with Christ; a representative from those who believe their written testimony. That testimony is axiom. The scientific community opposes it.

 

 

No it doesn't. As evidenced by the fact that many in the scientific community are religious.

[Moontanman]

I already know it works. For me it would be time wasted. Considering the time you guys have spent challenging Biblical notions, I would think you'd have the guts to prove this wrong if you thought you could. I trust the human written testimony of Moses and the cloud of written testimonies following his, in this case. Human testimony is valid evidence in any court of law. It holds up in every institution of government. Scripture has been counted as axiom during many periods of history, far prior to modern science. The burden of proof is on the scientific community. I'm not a member of the scientific community. I am a member of the Bible believing Christian church, those believing the written testimony of Jesus of Nazareth, by his followers and apostles. You say evolution of species or organisms occurs due to survival of the fittest. I reject that. I don't reject the scientific community. I embrace them. But if the scientific community gets to write a false script, I'm testifying here, that community will stumble and fall, irreparably. And if God is true, then let the church of the Islands of Hawaii, sweep the nations.

 

Bye.

 

 

Lets say for the sake of argument I allow your premise that the Bible is indeed true, we'll have to ignore all the stuff that is demonstrably false but what the hey this is just a science forum. How can I take your book seriously but ignore Islam's book, the Jews Book, the Hindus book, the Zoroastrians book, the list of holy books and writings is long and tiresome.

 

How do I tell yours is true and the others are not?

 

BTW, the number of people who believe something has no bearing on it's veracity! Nor does the rate at which it spreads, Christianity spread because the church spent a large amount of time not only destroying other cultures and destroying their books but it also spread Christianity through violence and conquest...

 

From your post I can say that you have no idea how evolution works.

 

Your holy book is hearsay, hearsay is never taken as testimony in court...

 

People all through history have believed all sorts of silly stuff, why is your "stuff"any better?

 

If you really think that the Bible cannot be shown to be wrong you are not paying attention...

 

In point of fact, every assertion in the bible about reality that can be tested has been shown to be false, this leaves only stuff that cannot be tested in anyway. Historically the Bible is bunkum, little to none of the history in the bible has any basis other than the bible and seeing how wrong it is about reality how can anyone trust it on anything?

 

Much of the bible is plagiarized from earlier cultures, pagan and polytheistic, and can be shown to be so...

BTW Gen 30:29-43 is nothing but nonsense, no one who knows anything about genetics would make such a false claim...

Edited June 10, 2016 by Moontanman