Posted on 10/06/2014 3:58:38 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
That they’re viable replacement cells does not require complete/perfect duplication. He existed, he mated, the result was one or more similarly organized forms continuing him (and her). That all but two cells were “shed” in the process is not a dismissible point, as without him (and her) there would be no offspring continuing the line.
Why not? If there was sufficient light and suitable environment, then “plants” (of whatever primordial form) could exist.
BTW: there’s nothing about “yoms” in that text. Lacking a sun, the notion of a “day” is rather metaphorical.
You’re expecting a very high degree of precision, detail & accuracy in a very few words given to a very ignorant audience. I don’t doubt the text is appropriately descriptive of what happened, but I do question our understanding of what that refers to. That we don’t grasp what actually happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen the way it did happen, however it happened. Our understanding is incomplete; to criticize another’s understanding (however incomplete) on the premise that ours is perfect is grossly arrogant.
Maybe, but that only means that the substituting cells are degraded, with increased entropy regarding the order expressed in the master cell, the one resulting from the union of the gametes.
The cells to be replaced are damaged by exposure and function with less-than-perfect fuel/nutrients and waste products.
The replacement cells supplied by in situ mitosis, thus the repair does not yield the initial state of order.
Can these damaged cells undergo meiosis and sequentially produce viable subsequent individuals that would be more perfect than the prototype, or be called "another" species that no longer produces descentents linked by genetic code to the archetypes? If they do, no case of genetic transmission of acquired characteristics have been shown. So far, that is.
That all but two cells were “shed” in the process is not a dismissible point, as without him (and her) there would be no offspring continuing the line.
Here we go, into the wild blue yonder! Well I'm not going. The contributing individual died. The gamete only contains part of him. The gamete of the other contributor contributes part, not all of it/her. What results is the passing on of the life principle.
The code-inheriting entity is not its precursor, but the body of that entity resides within the code of all that is permitted to be called human and not chimpanzee or pig or whatever.
No other body like the progenitor's will ever exist again. Let's go back to the probability that Darwinian evolution and not punctuated equilibrium is the proposed model for whale hips. That model is not yet validated.
Yet the order continued. The subsequent form is only trivially different from the prior.
No necessarily, but to assume this is the aura is risking being called arrogant. Using precise terms invites the responders to study the subject, which is seen as arrogance only by the one who thinks he/she knows more. When I am trying to display arrogance, I will let you know. In this medium, right now, you can only assume that. Is that what you are assuming? It sounds very personal to me.
You are quite correct in that. And so it is for the acorn --> tree --> acorn --> tree --> apple??? with unimaginable time and chance?? Naah.
The articles from John Morris and Jobe Martin intercede for me --
Waal, if you were standin' on the north pole, some days would kinda seem like that, wouldn't they?
But then, it warn't 'til day six that anybody was around to notice it, eh?
I guess Moses just wrote down what God told him to. Either God lied, or he didn't, and that's all we got.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.