Life Before, and Changes as a Result of the Fall

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on September 12, 2010 at 6:41pm

A very interesting question, Adam.
An interesting question indeed! And an equally provocative conjecture!
The operative principle at work here though I believe is that the same GENOME is shared by the bees. While the queen is transformed by eating Royal Jelly (pheremones are onlly used for transmitting external information), I haven't yet learned the mechanics involved in the chemical processes that bring about this change. Even though for two years I was the live-in caretaker of an Apiologist, who taught me a great deal about animal husbandry and bee bee-haviour (sorry, couldn't resist). But the point is, that through successive generations, the bee genome remains the bee genome. The bees as we see them today are likely the same as they would have appeared thousands of generations ago. If any genetic information had changed from the first bee until now, it would only have taken the form of a LOSS of information; not a gain leading to the transformation of the form we see today which, by the way is still a bee.

The environmental question is certainly valid; as it relates to the adaptation of a given species to more readily flourish in their present environment. This would ordinarily fall under the universally agreed upon principle of "Survival of the Fittest"; or, Micro-evolution, which denotes only genetic variation within a "Kind" or "family" of animal; e.g.: Darwin's finches, or all the varieties of horses (stallions, zebras, donkeys, etc.). But there would seem to be in place, no available genetic "switch" or mechanism of change to allow for the transformation of one "kind" into another. It has not been observed or recorded as having been observed in all of human history.

To suggest that there may have been periods of "punctuated equilibrium", or some other such unobservable phenomona is no more than wishful thinking on the part of the evolutionist, and has no basis in reality where truly testable science is concerned.

Whether several worker bees occassionally begin reproducing in the absence of a Queen I can't personally verify. Though in order for them to do so, they would also have to cause the production of the male drones to enseminate the lucky female(s). Drones as you probably know are always driven-off or killed by the workers after their mating ritual with the queen is done. I also admittedly don't remember how drones are made, but I think it happens by a process similar to how the queens are made.

Adam J. Benton said:

Actually, the Queen does suppress the development of certain traits with in the Workers. Whilst it was an oversimplification to go from Worker to Queen (my apologies), in the absence of a Queen Workers have been know to start reproducing. Something they do not usually do.

This is somewhat besides the point, what I was attempting to show is that the Queen and the Worker both have the same genome, yet because of purely external stimuli (jelly/pheromones) they can wind up developing into different beings (albeit, as you point out, not too different). Could not something similar have occurred with other animals? Two different forms from the same genome, depending on the environment.

D. Ron Craig said:

For starters, when it's time for a new queen bee, there's not a sudden stop of any 'suppression' of genes per say; but the worker bees (which are 100% female) pick out one of the recently laid larva, and begin to feed her a substance called "Royal Jelly". Then begins the process of an ordinary worker bee morphing into a queen.

Now, if the new diet of Royal Jelly has the effect of "removing a genetic inhibitor. . .I don't know. All I know is that a change takes place. But it's still a bee. Just like the trillions of generations of bees before before it.

Hummingbirds have teeth! Does that mean they were ever carnivorous? Actually they still are. . . to a degree. They don't subsist on nectar alone, but suppliment their diet by eating ants and other teeny tiny insects. Do they need teeth to be able to eat them? Not really. But they have them nonetheless.

I don't know if anyone saw my entry from yesterday citing one more example of outrageous fangs on an herbivore; but I mentioned the Chinese Water Deer, who has fangs like those of a Sabre-toothed Cat, yet they eat grass. It will likely never be determined when or how defense/attack structures came into being, or who ate what type of vegetation exactly prior to the fall. Although I rather liked the suggestion that T- Rex may have used those 6" choppers to eat bark off of trees.

As to snake venom, it is a complex set of proteins and enzymes that have the effect of specifically targeting the central nervous system. . .especially relating to the heart and lungs (a NEURO-toxin); causing paralysis of those tissues so that the victim's heart slows and breathing becomes so labored the the victim essentially "suffocates".
Then there are those snakes whose venom is "HEMO-toxic, which specifically targets red blood cells, and for the lack of my ability to provide a better description, it basicallY turns the victims blood "to dust". A very painful death to be sure. Some snakes however, have a combination of the two: the Green Mojave Rattler, and Sidewinder being two examples.
Snake venom however, as most everyone knows, can be manipulated and altered to become beneficial; the obvious example being "Antivenin", given to snake bite victims to counter the effects of the venom. But you need to know the species of the snake that bit you to be able to administer the right antivenin. Otherwise it could have an adverse effect. . . even kill you. There are examples of people with say, a cracked vertebrae deep in their neck that while being inoperable, can be injected with a measured dose of say, cobra venom, causing the tissues around and within the injury to heal far more rapidly than it could on it's own.
I personally believe that prior to the fall and subsequent curse, every animal was, as the Bible states, a plant eater. Perhaps God, knowing ahead of time what would befall His creation, gave every creature the tools they would need to survive in what would eventually become a hostile world; and so equipping them, gave them appetites for things that they could easily chew and digest with their appointed anatomies. Like T-Rex being an eater of bark and melons say; or of the foliage of trees that were at his head level. There are many possibilities, not a one of which should be held onto dogmatically, even though it's fun to debate them. So out of this, I hope we can all agree that in the final analysis, none of it really matters other than that it has allowed us to stretch our thinking muscles and employ that great gift of sentient communication!
Ron C.

Adam J. Benton said:

Kind of. The issue with dormant genes, which gene suppression gets around, is that most gene activation occurs in the womb (or egg or whatever). As such, you'd wind up with a generation still in "garden form" and poorly adapted to the real world, probably resulting in mass extinction. My suggestion is that the genes are already active, the effects of them are just suppressed. When the suppression stops the effects will occur and the creatures will change, without the need for a new generation. When the Queen dies in a Bee colony, the suppression stops and another Worker grows into the Queen and then starts suppressing the other Workers. Similarly, when leaving Paradise stopped the suppression of venom in snakes, they would grow into modern snakes. No intermediaries or new generation needed.

Stefan Morin said:

Adam J. Benton said:

I was just trying to think of a way to test whether inhibition, like in bees, might've allowed for many traits to remain 'hidden' and then appear suddenly - voiding the problem irreducible complexity creates. I guess I didn't quite think it through.

Ok, I see a bit better the point you were trying to make. Kinda like dormant genes that got activated by some mechanism after the fall. Am I following you here? And I agree with the IC issues with things like snake venom. I wonder though, if maybe there ever was a purpose for venom aside from self-defense/attack. Any thoughts?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Watts on September 12, 2010 at 7:47pm

OK, there have been a few references to "sharp-teeth" animals; and so I found it mentioned in the Bible. The sixth verse of Isaiah 11 some of us know well, but verse 7 makes mention of the lion eating "straw like the ox." It still doesn't tell us whether there are any changes to the tooth, but it does clue us in on the intended diet of the lion.

Isa 11:6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox."

Here's a set of pics I threw together. One is a lion skull, the second is that of a ferocious herbivore; then there's a few tools used to harvest hay. The tools look as vicious as any carnivore; their purpose, of course, is to cut hay more efficiently.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on September 12, 2010 at 8:04pm

Excellent, Tim! But what species is the herbivore? Looks like it could maybe be a Warthog.

Tim Watts said:

OK, there have been a few references to "sharp-teeth" animals; and so I found it mentioned in the Bible. The sixth verse of Isaiah 11 some of us know well, but verse 7 makes mention of the lion eating "straw like the ox." It still doesn't tell us whether there are any changes to the tooth, but it does clue us in on the intended diet of the lion.

Isa 11:6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox."

Here's a set of pics I threw together. One is a lion skull, the second is that of a ferocious herbivore; then there's a few tools used to harvest hay. The tools look as vicious as any carnivore; their purpose, of course, is to cut hay more efficiently.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on September 12, 2010 at 8:19pm

I'm going to guess "hippo."

D. Ron Craig said:

Excellent, Tim! But what species is the herbivore? Looks like it could maybe be a Warthog.

Tim Watts said:

OK, there have been a few references to "sharp-teeth" animals; and so I found it mentioned in the Bible. The sixth verse of Isaiah 11 some of us know well, but verse 7 makes mention of the lion eating "straw like the ox." It still doesn't tell us whether there are any changes to the tooth, but it does clue us in on the intended diet of the lion.

Isa 11:6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox."

Here's a set of pics I threw together. One is a lion skull, the second is that of a ferocious herbivore; then there's a few tools used to harvest hay. The tools look as vicious as any carnivore; their purpose, of course, is to cut hay more efficiently.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam J. Benton on September 13, 2010 at 4:37am

Well, Bees can reproduce without being fertilised, in fact, that is where Drones come from. Indeed, most Worker reproduction (if not all) is observed to be making Drones, given that the Workers aren't fertilised.

You just can't help yourself, you know that? Hear I am trying to have a nice discussion within creationism and you just can't resist bringing in evolution. You might want to get that looked at, it could develop into a rash *giggles* In an effort not to distract from the topic at hand, I'll just leave the fact we do see genus changing here, in a light-hearted manner.

D. Ron Craig said:

A very interesting question, Adam.
An interesting question indeed! And an equally provocative conjecture!
The operative principle at work here though I believe is that the same GENOME is shared by the bees. While the queen is transformed by eating Royal Jelly (pheremones are onlly used for transmitting external information), I haven't yet learned the mechanics involved in the chemical processes that bring about this change. Even though for two years I was the live-in caretaker of an Apiologist, who taught me a great deal about animal husbandry and bee bee-haviour (sorry, couldn't resist). But the point is, that through successive generations, the bee genome remains the bee genome. The bees as we see them today are likely the same as they would have appeared thousands of generations ago. If any genetic information had changed from the first bee until now, it would only have taken the form of a LOSS of information; not a gain leading to the transformation of the form we see today which, by the way is still a bee.

The environmental question is certainly valid; as it relates to the adaptation of a given species to more readily flourish in their present environment. This would ordinarily fall under the universally agreed upon principle of "Survival of the Fittest"; or, Micro-evolution, which denotes only genetic variation within a "Kind" or "family" of animal; e.g.: Darwin's finches, or all the varieties of horses (stallions, zebras, donkeys, etc.). But there would seem to be in place, no available genetic "switch" or mechanism of change to allow for the transformation of one "kind" into another. It has not been observed or recorded as having been observed in all of human history.

To suggest that there may have been periods of "punctuated equilibrium", or some other such unobservable phenomona is no more than wishful thinking on the part of the evolutionist, and has no basis in reality where truly testable science is concerned.

Whether several worker bees occassionally begin reproducing in the absence of a Queen I can't personally verify. Though in order for them to do so, they would also have to cause the production of the male drones to enseminate the lucky female(s). Drones as you probably know are always driven-off or killed by the workers after their mating ritual with the queen is done. I also admittedly don't remember how drones are made, but I think it happens by a process similar to how the queens are made.

Adam J. Benton said:

Actually, the Queen does suppress the development of certain traits with in the Workers. Whilst it was an oversimplification to go from Worker to Queen (my apologies), in the absence of a Queen Workers have been know to start reproducing. Something they do not usually do.

This is somewhat besides the point, what I was attempting to show is that the Queen and the Worker both have the same genome, yet because of purely external stimuli (jelly/pheromones) they can wind up developing into different beings (albeit, as you point out, not too different). Could not something similar have occurred with other animals? Two different forms from the same genome, depending on the environment.

D. Ron Craig said:

For starters, when it's time for a new queen bee, there's not a sudden stop of any 'suppression' of genes per say; but the worker bees (which are 100% female) pick out one of the recently laid larva, and begin to feed her a substance called "Royal Jelly". Then begins the process of an ordinary worker bee morphing into a queen.

Now, if the new diet of Royal Jelly has the effect of "removing a genetic inhibitor. . .I don't know. All I know is that a change takes place. But it's still a bee. Just like the trillions of generations of bees before before it.

Hummingbirds have teeth! Does that mean they were ever carnivorous? Actually they still are. . . to a degree. They don't subsist on nectar alone, but suppliment their diet by eating ants and other teeny tiny insects. Do they need teeth to be able to eat them? Not really. But they have them nonetheless.

I don't know if anyone saw my entry from yesterday citing one more example of outrageous fangs on an herbivore; but I mentioned the Chinese Water Deer, who has fangs like those of a Sabre-toothed Cat, yet they eat grass. It will likely never be determined when or how defense/attack structures came into being, or who ate what type of vegetation exactly prior to the fall. Although I rather liked the suggestion that T- Rex may have used those 6" choppers to eat bark off of trees.

As to snake venom, it is a complex set of proteins and enzymes that have the effect of specifically targeting the central nervous system. . .especially relating to the heart and lungs (a NEURO-toxin); causing paralysis of those tissues so that the victim's heart slows and breathing becomes so labored the the victim essentially "suffocates".
Then there are those snakes whose venom is "HEMO-toxic, which specifically targets red blood cells, and for the lack of my ability to provide a better description, it basicallY turns the victims blood "to dust". A very painful death to be sure. Some snakes however, have a combination of the two: the Green Mojave Rattler, and Sidewinder being two examples.
Snake venom however, as most everyone knows, can be manipulated and altered to become beneficial; the obvious example being "Antivenin", given to snake bite victims to counter the effects of the venom. But you need to know the species of the snake that bit you to be able to administer the right antivenin. Otherwise it could have an adverse effect. . . even kill you. There are examples of people with say, a cracked vertebrae deep in their neck that while being inoperable, can be injected with a measured dose of say, cobra venom, causing the tissues around and within the injury to heal far more rapidly than it could on it's own.
I personally believe that prior to the fall and subsequent curse, every animal was, as the Bible states, a plant eater. Perhaps God, knowing ahead of time what would befall His creation, gave every creature the tools they would need to survive in what would eventually become a hostile world; and so equipping them, gave them appetites for things that they could easily chew and digest with their appointed anatomies. Like T-Rex being an eater of bark and melons say; or of the foliage of trees that were at his head level. There are many possibilities, not a one of which should be held onto dogmatically, even though it's fun to debate them. So out of this, I hope we can all agree that in the final analysis, none of it really matters other than that it has allowed us to stretch our thinking muscles and employ that great gift of sentient communication!
Ron C.

Adam J. Benton said:

Kind of. The issue with dormant genes, which gene suppression gets around, is that most gene activation occurs in the womb (or egg or whatever). As such, you'd wind up with a generation still in "garden form" and poorly adapted to the real world, probably resulting in mass extinction. My suggestion is that the genes are already active, the effects of them are just suppressed. When the suppression stops the effects will occur and the creatures will change, without the need for a new generation. When the Queen dies in a Bee colony, the suppression stops and another Worker grows into the Queen and then starts suppressing the other Workers. Similarly, when leaving Paradise stopped the suppression of venom in snakes, they would grow into modern snakes. No intermediaries or new generation needed.

Stefan Morin said:

Adam J. Benton said:

I was just trying to think of a way to test whether inhibition, like in bees, might've allowed for many traits to remain 'hidden' and then appear suddenly - voiding the problem irreducible complexity creates. I guess I didn't quite think it through.

Ok, I see a bit better the point you were trying to make. Kinda like dormant genes that got activated by some mechanism after the fall. Am I following you here? And I agree with the IC issues with things like snake venom. I wonder though, if maybe there ever was a purpose for venom aside from self-defense/attack. Any thoughts?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on September 13, 2010 at 11:32am

Yeah, I'll buy that. I actually thought that when I first saw it, but changed my opinion to pig.
Did you know; that more people in Africa are killed by hippos' every year than by any other animal?

Jeannette Parry said:

Yes, the skull looks too smooth to be that of a pig, especially a warthog.

Just looked it up - identical pic, said to be that of a hippo!



Stefan Morin said:

I'm going to guess "hippo."

D. Ron Craig said:

Excellent, Tim! But what species is the herbivore? Looks like it could maybe be a Warthog.

Tim Watts said:

OK, there have been a few references to "sharp-teeth" animals; and so I found it mentioned in the Bible. The sixth verse of Isaiah 11 some of us know well, but verse 7 makes mention of the lion eating "straw like the ox." It still doesn't tell us whether there are any changes to the tooth, but it does clue us in on the intended diet of the lion.

Isa 11:6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox."

Here's a set of pics I threw together. One is a lion skull, the second is that of a ferocious herbivore; then there's a few tools used to harvest hay. The tools look as vicious as any carnivore; their purpose, of course, is to cut hay more efficiently.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Watts on September 16, 2010 at 12:14am

Hippo is correct!

Animals like this are God's way of throwing us a curveball. He seems to enjoy doing this with the animals; just read His discussion with Job. So as someone already said, sharp teeth does not equal carnivore. The harvesting tools show that a long, sharp form is actually quite efficient for mowing down grass. However, this design would have to be adapted to sit safely inside the mouth. Additionally, plants were probably not as coarse in the Garden, so teeth would not need to be quite so sharp.

I see alot of interesting thoughts in this thread. I always thought mosquitos might have originally pierced the skin of fruits (or other plant parts); thanks, Jeannette, for helping me know I'm not crazy. That's the only explanation I can consider when asked why God made those pests.

The best part about all these questions is that we'll be able to confirm much of it in the future. That passage from Isaiah, with the lion eating straw, is a reference to the new earth.

So here's another curveball - doesn't a caterpillar "rearrange" its DNA before becoming a butterfly? This defies evolution, since it is not a parent-to-child transformation, and since the sucessive generation returns to original form. Perhaps the butterfly is God's display of hope for renewed paradise, with the caterpillar being a picture of fallen creation.

Stefan Morin said:

I'm going to guess "hippo."

D. Ron Craig said:

Excellent, Tim! But what species is the herbivore? Looks like it could maybe be a Warthog.

Tim Watts said:

OK, there have been a few references to "sharp-teeth" animals; and so I found it mentioned in the Bible. The sixth verse of Isaiah 11 some of us know well, but verse 7 makes mention of the lion eating "straw like the ox." It still doesn't tell us whether there are any changes to the tooth, but it does clue us in on the intended diet of the lion.

Isa 11:6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox."

Here's a set of pics I threw together. One is a lion skull, the second is that of a ferocious herbivore; then there's a few tools used to harvest hay. The tools look as vicious as any carnivore; their purpose, of course, is to cut hay more efficiently.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page