I wish you people would just go to school for a few years. A decent one.

Evolution does not happen to individuals, except at the level of very basic adaptations. When we speak of "biological evolution" we speak of changes in populations of species that result in the emergence of new species or higher taxonomic forms. Change in the gene frequency of a population does not, in itself, suffice to say "evolution" is occurring as we are speaking of it here. That is to say, how much change is needed to observe actual emergence of new species? BE is not simply "change over time" it is emergence of populations of forms distinct from one another at the taxonomic level.

Selection happens at the level of the individual. Evolution happens at the level of the population. Additionally, other things besides "natural selection" can change the frequency of a specific gene. ALSO - selection is on the individual, that is, phenotypes are selected for or against, not genes. That genes frequencies change is a result of the action of the environment on individual phenotypes.

This is 101, guys. Now I'm done. You want more, pay me.

Never mind, don't have time for posers.

GO TO SCHOOL.

the unit of selection is the gene, if you think anything else today you have a poor understanding of evolution. If you think it happens at the ability it's basically impossible to explain unreciprocated altruism from parents to children. If you think it happens at a group level you can't explain why altruism is limited.

Well I started out several years back being interested in what the book of Revelation means. So I read a Christian book explaining the symbology and some of the eschatology then I reread Revelation again and spoke to a few Christian people on it then read more interpretations on it then I completed reading the whole OT then I realized the Jews had followed a historically foreordained path because I started to focus on the prophets and then I compared what happened in the Holocaust while at about the same time I noticed more instances of Jewish history before and after Christ's time substantiating the bible's account plus I came across that very interesting passage of the book of Ezekiel where the 2 sticks representing the House of Judah and the House of Israel are brought together. So I became interested in the Lost Tribes and the Two House Movement. Most people will never get to this point in bible studies because most people just don't have the interest to get this far. A lot of Christians are fearful of the end times or they prefer to keep faith matters simple and a lot of Christians routinely go to church without day to day study of the bible or having completed the whole bible. They believe on the Resurrection account and don't even seem to think they need to know the whole bible.

Well here's a start:

You can read this Collins link and site: http://stevenmcollins.com/html/usa_in_prophecy.html

This book Judah's Sceptre: http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=us
(It's not too long a book)

An interesting chart that does some sect bridging:
http://www.cryaloud.com/division_of_power.htm

Check this site out on the Two House Movement: http://jewsandjoes.com/

I have run into other things but these are just a few off the top of my head.

So while evolution is trying to build from the distant past forward on the fossil record I think the bible is able to work from the OT past forward on the historical record.

Since the 50s evolution generally refers to change in genetic material of the population, not merely changes in the population. The difference is there. Said change is due to changes within the arbitrary distinction that is individual(s).

Generally think you all are tangenting down to Nitville, however.

Hey, in the 50s they were just beginning to wonder if continents drifted.

Biological evolution is never just defined as a change in gene frequency. (At least, not by actual experts.) This is because you can change the hell out of all kinds of genes' frequencies and never change the population at the species level.

The real problem is when these things are taught at the highschool or even basic survey course level, the concepts are explained by the "just-so" story. People talk about it as if some one single gene is changed somehow to make rabbits furrier in cold. This is why Creationists cannot get macroevolution and hardly anyone can explain it properly. Because you have to go back and fix all kinds of wrong concepts, like, "selection acts on genes." No. It doesn't. Selection acts, and can only act, on individuals. The result of selection, in some cases, is a change in the gene frequency in a population, which is not the same as a species, obviously. A change in gene frequency does not equal biological evolution, although, I believe, and many others have come to believe, we will be able to find a steady % of change that we can use to finally and precisely define a "species." BUT - even that will probably not be relegated to just genes, but also to other forms of genetic material that make up the chromosome that we don't label as a "gene" in the classic sense.

I don't care if people misunderstand. They have to, unless they spend six-eight years in school learning this stuff. What I care about is someone acting like other people are stupid for questioning the story when the story is so inadequate and the "experts" acting like the questioners are idiots, mostly have no clue what they are talking about, anyway.

Everyone needs to shut the hell up with their "expertise" in this field and just listen to one another and see if they can explain to themselves, even, why they decided to believe what they believe.

If I treat them like they are stupid, it's because they really should know how it feels and because - well - I actually do know what I'm talking about. When someone else around here shows up with more years of study and work in the field than myself, especially more recent work, I will happily defer.

Until then, the only person even close to a true expert here - is myself. And tell you the truth, God is way more interesting to me to chat about.

(BTW - Watson/Crick didn't even announce they had the structure of DNA until the early 50s - and no one was talking about gene frequencies in biological evolution, afaik)

+500

Ok, thanks. Well, I see we won't have that much to discuss since Revelation is just an ancient "dime novel" IMO and there are no "lost tribes" there are just merged ones.

I agree that the OT is a great source for understanding the movement of peoples in the area of the world in which the it is set.

"Evolution" means change over time. What you are referring to cannot be biological evolution, unless you are proposing multiple human species. But certainly there are a lot of cultural and social change as well as changes in theological understanding to try and understand.

Yes, the Lost Tribes seem to be mainly lost as in their identity obscured.

I don't attribute a dime novel status to the Book of Revelation. We do have a strong globalization trend in the world today and that the book documents that this would happen now seems significant.

As for evolution I'm mainly considering the migrationary aspect but from a much later time frame.

And the Book of Revelation doesn't have anything to do with the migrationary phenomena outlined in the bible. I just mentioned it to describe how my interest developed in the study of prophecy and that that interest led me to the authors describing how the migrations of people actually dovetailed with the biblical account. Allen and Collins outline some of the details and there's another author Yair Davidy that Collins cites though I haven't read much of Davidy yet just a very short article. Collins says Davidy's writings express ideas similar to his yet they each started from different methodologies/approachs.