Jump to content
Radical Edward

Evidence of Human Common Ancestry

Recommended Posts

It depends on how people look at it. My perspective is rather different than you Ryan Jones' date=' because you are not thinking thoroughly. If we have the ability to cure gene even before birth, it can have its disadvantages. If everybody is born perfect then there will be too many people on the planet. We succinctly need thousands of people to be dead every day. I don't want to sound like a devil but it's a way to reduce our exponentially population boom. We are running out of resources and natural needies. UNLESS, we create morbid space station out in the space? Anyway right now it's not a good idea to converse sicken babies into perfects.

 

What do you guys think?[/quote']

 

Good point... I was only refering to genetic disseases you understand though - I don't theink there will ever be a 100% effective system against viruses, bacteria and the like for a very, very long time if ever so that will continue to keep the populations down. Nature has a way of doing that - like in places like Africa where they have droughts and desertification because there are too many people on the land, they over work the land, all the plants die. Next no rains come because the soil gets erroded and its nutrients leached. Next no nutrients no plants and so transpiration form plants - no rain (Or a hell of a lot less). Thus people die lowering the population too an acceptable level.

 

Only problem is now food aid is sent its keeping the populations up so the planet has no time to recover. I'm not here to discuss the moral issues here (Nor do I want to anyway) but either way the higher a population does the greater risk of something bad happening. Thats just the way things work in nature in the end no ammmount of food-aid will stop whats going to happen :S

 

Anyway yes I do agree with you - a world without dissease will lead to exactly the same problem as in places like Africa now so I agree with you 100% on that point. Nature has a way of adapting its self to stop us doing just that - you find a great drug and in a few years its useless...

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Compgenomes/compgenomes1.html

The human genome has about 400 million more nucleotides than the mouse. A comparison of the two genomes reveals that both have about 30,000 genes, and they share the bulk of them—the human genome shares 99% of its genes with mice. Humans and mice diverged about 75 million years ago, too little time for many evolutionary differences to accumulate. There are only 300 genes unique to either organism, about 1% of the genome.

What?

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

I am finding this extremely confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genes are important but so is the environment. Let me give an interesting example. If we look at the various cells in our body, each will have the same DNA. However, each cell differentiation will only use a fraction of all the genes; the genes needed to make that cell differentiation. Using this limited amount of active DNA, the differentiated cell builds up a protein capacitance within itself, that reflects the used genes. So when two daughter cells form, even though the DNA is initially totally packed in chromosomes, its differentiated protein capacitance helps the DNA limit itself so it can express the specfic needs of the cell's differentiation.

 

In other words, the DNA defines the proteins, while the protein, during cells cycle, postures the DNA, so the chromosomes can be differentiated to parallel the daughter cell proteins. The protein is the link to the environment and to the DNA. If the environment alters the protein grid, the new protein distribution will mold its DNA to reflect the change, during the next cell cycle.

 

If we look at the genetic differences between animals we are quite close. Where some of differences lie is based on how our cell differentiations make use or don't use some of the common genes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, the DNA defines the proteins, while the protein, during cells cycle, postures the DNA, so the chromosomes can be differentiated to parallel the daughter cell proteins. The protein is the link to the environment and to the DNA. If the environment alters the protein grid, the new protein distribution will mold its DNA to reflect the change, during the next cell cycle.

 

Oh for the love of god...

 

READ:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

 

If you're going to bother posting on a science forum, could you actually take 5 minutes to research what you're about to post before instead posting your own completely warped view of reality?

 

I mean, this is why we have science, so we can understand the workings of the world empirically and not have to venture thoroughly unempirical, retarded guesses which will undoubtably be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People still believe in creation?
I think everyone has to believe in a creation myth on some level. It doesn't have to get mixed in with science, and science doesn't have to get mixed in with everything. When I watch the sunset I am comfortable believing that my fellow creature, Brother Sun, revolves around that other fellow creature, our sister Mother Earth, as it appears to always have since creation and appears that it always will, even though it does not, has not, and will not. As far as I am concerned in my every day life, even just 10,000 years is forever. Well maybe 100,000 years. Also, as much as I respect Albert Einstein, Newtonian physics is close enough for the girls I go out with, and the woods will alway contain many mysteries that can reveal themselves on their own.

 

In the lab I am a scientist, but when I go for a walk in the woods, I am a creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think everyone has to believe in a creation myth on some level.

and i think you are wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demosthenes, it is not that confusing if you read carefully. In the first quote they are refering to genes. That is, defined stretches of DNA that has been annotated to carry coding information. 99% are annotated to have the same function, but may vary slightly in the sequence.

In the second quote they compared whole DNA stretches (I admit, I got the issue lying around here somewhere but did not actually read it...). So in the second quote they basically say that we do not only have the same genes, but even the sequence of them is very similar (with exceptions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and i think you are wrong
What I mean is if you broaden your definition of myth, and consider it from a psychological and sociological perspective, you may find that you do believe in many myths, if only on a sub conscious or subverted level. Otherwise how do you get up in the morning, or sleep at night? I think science is the process of uncovering these myths and finding more useful understandings of nature. Some myths you can also learn to live with, because they can be comforting, and don't really interfere with your science any more than a warm cup of tea or a walk in the woods. In fact, they can even be helpful.

 

Getting married and having children is a great way to discover myths.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

"Mythology, mythography, or folkloristics. In these academic fields, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths take place before time, before history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false. See also legend and tale."

 

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myth

Main Entry: myth

Pronunciation: 'mith

Function: noun

Etymology: Greek mythos

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY

2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion

3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

4 : the whole body of myths

 

p.s.

The notion that we can't both be right is something of a myth.

All generalizations ultimately fail, but are still useful.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, if we redefine "myth" to mean something besides "myth", then we all believe in "myth"s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this supposed to be an argument against creationism, or an argument against a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?

 

What is the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the difference?

The difference is that the latter is merely one of many components of the former, and a seemingly optional one at that.

 

But that is all off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the difference?

If my memory serves, the book of genesis says first god created plant then animal then man. Some, granted some, may interpret that as a basic description of evolution. That probably wasn't the intention of the writer(s) of the bible, but some people may take it like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Here is a quote from the original post;

 

First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right? Now, if there are 2 such ERVs, the odds are 1 in 6 billion times 1 in 6 billion for both being inserted into the same places by chance. If there are 3, you must multiply by another 1 in 6 billion. Now, since you have 12 such insertions in humans compared to the common ancestor, you have just passed the creationist number for it having occured by chance! By creationism's own criterion, their argument is invalid. The only creationist rebuttal to this is that there are hot spots, where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, but there are still a great number of hotspots throughout the genomes, and given the above points, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time. Again if there are multiple hotspots and multiple infections, there is no reason that there should not be ERVs that do not match the phylogenetic tree. again we see no deviances from expected inheritance patterns.

 

In respect to the insertion selection site. Does this recent scientific discovery have any relavence to this subject:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html?ex=1311480000&en=34d8e6ced8d42f47&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

 

A small snippet:

Biologists have suspected for years that some positions on the DNA, notably those where it bends most easily, might be more favorable for nucleosomes than others, but no overall pattern was apparent. Drs. Segal and Widom analyzed the sequence at some 200 sites in the yeast genome where nucleosomes are known to bind, and discovered that there is indeed a hidden pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Guys' date='

 

In respect to the insertion selection site. Does this recent scientific discovery have any relavence to this subject:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html?ex=1311480000&en=34d8e6ced8d42f47&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

 

[/quote']

 

I can't see any relevance. The news study talks about access to the DNA for signalling when to turn a gene on:

"Having the sequence of units in DNA determine the placement of nucleosomes would explain a puzzling feature of transcription factors, the proteins that activate genes. The transcription factors recognize short sequences of DNA, about six to eight units in length, which lie just in front of the gene to be transcribed. "

 

If the transcription sequence is buried, then the factor can't bind to it. However, ERV's are inserted into the DNA. You are thinking that exposed sections of DNA make it easier to have the same insertion sites from species to species. Right?

 

But that still doesn't explain why there is a heirarchy of shared ERVs. That is, we share more ERVs with chimps than we do with orangutuans. Among ALL the possible insertion sites opened by nucleosomes -- 30 million -- why would we share with chimps more than gorillas or deer? That's a LOT of hotspots and there is no reason to think that one exposed area -- since they are all of the same 6-8 bases -- is going to be different than any other exposed area. No, the insertions would be random among the 30 million sites, not showing the heirarchial pattern we do see.

 

Also, insertion is not the same as binding. Sequences that encourage enzymes to cleave DNA are not the same sequences that are binding the proteins that are transcription factors.

 

Now, creationists could do some actual research and test whether ERVs are associated with transcription areas. That is, do ERVs always or most often appear just before transcription areas? Michael Behe still has a lab and the Discovery Institute has money. Perhaps DI could fund Behe to look at this hypothesis. Bet they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Behe has made comments like this before.

 

"In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish"

 

The reality is the number of links on such endevors on that page alone to stuides in which he states has never even existed totals well over a hundread alone, many to published books on the subject. The man is not all to honest in his endevors is all if he would make such a comment like that.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely titanic in influence in respect to evidence. Not even a feasible-conceptional God-could look you in the eye and assert the contrary.....I am proud to have taken part in a most noble science i.e evolution and the superior likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely titanic in influence in respect to evidence. Not even a feasible-conceptional God-could look you in the eye and assert the contrary.....I am proud to have taken part in a most noble science i.e evolution and the superior likes.

:confused: Who are you referring to? Behe? And what is God not asserting to the contrary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:confused: Who are you referring to? Behe? And what is God not asserting to the contrary?

 

I am referring to the general conception of evolution as a science in opposition to theology.

 

Now the argumentation commences. Tis' obvious that man is oblivious as to the origins of his ancestors- or at least at a disagreement about as to wither or not science or theology is accurate and feasible. All that I was asserting, is that the science of evolution is so-evident that if God did exist, he would not be able to refute evolutions existence. Witch would conclude, that if God did exist(IMO feasible and most likely he dose not), evolution would have been nothing more than another abiogenesis-theory(spontaneous generation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am referring to the general conception of evolution as a science in opposition to theology.

 

Now the argumentation commences. Tis' obvious that man is oblivious as to the origins of his ancestors- or at least at a disagreement about as to wither or not science or theology is accurate and feasible. All that I was asserting, is that the science of evolution is so-evident that if God did exist, he would not be able to refute evolutions existence. Witch would conclude, that if God did exist(IMO feasible and most likely he dose not), evolution would have been nothing more than another abiogenesis-theory(spontaneous generation).

 

1. You start with a false premise: that science and evolution is in opposition to theology. Christianity welcomed evolution because it got God out of a very tight spot that special creation put Him into. In fact, Christians accepted evolution quicker than scientists! By 1884 -- just 25 years after the famous Huxley-Wilberforce debate -- the new Archbisop of Canterbury announced the acceptance of evolution and it did not cause a stir. It took the Modern Syntheis in the 1940s before evolution became universally accepted in science.

 

2. Christians look upon evolution as simply the way God created. Christianity also accepts that God has two books: the Bible and Creation. Science studies the second book, Creation. So all the evidence in this thread on the common ancestry of humans and apes, of which the sequence of transitional fossils in the hominid lineage which I posted earlier is part, is simply God shouting "I did it by evolution!"

 

3. So what we have is not science vs theology. What we have is science vs worship of a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is not science vs theology in general, but science vs a very specific religion -- Fundamentalism. The Fundamentalists are very loud and try to portray themselves as Christianity and even all of theism, but they are not. If we are going to be reasonable, rational critical thinkers, then we must analyze creationism and the religion of which it is a part and realize what it really is, not just what they claim. I realize that for people like you it is tempting to try to make Fundamentalism be all of theism -- because that is the only way you can show it to be "feasible and most likely he [God] dose not" exist, but you must resist the temptation. If you are going to claim to deal with reality, then you must deal with the reality that Fundamentalism is not Christian and is certainly not all of "theology". Nearly all the different versions of theology have no problem with evolution and many embrace it.

 

3. Evolution is NOT "another abiogenesis theory". Absolutely not. Here you get the science very badly wrong. All scientific theories have boundaries and assume the existence of some entities. Gravity assumes the existence of mass. First Law of Thermodynamics assumes the existence of the universe. Evolution assumes the existence of the first cell or life. So, evolution does NOT explain abiogenesis. Those are other theories and lie within chemistry and biochemistry, not evolution. Also, evolution is NOT "spontaneous generation". Neither is abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is a very specific theory that says complex, multicelled organisms arise spontaneously from dead or decaying organic matter -- mice from grain and maggots from rotting meat. Abiogenesis is life from matter that has never lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lucaspa, it seems like you're using a definition of "Christian" that is a much smaller subset of those who self-identify as "Christian." Are you aware of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lucaspa, it seems like you're using a definition of "Christian" that is a much smaller subset of those who self-identify as "Christian." Are you aware of this?

 

What I am saying is that we have a new religion that calls itself "Christian" but isn't. I am using the reality, not the "self-identify". I am saying that many of those that "self-identify" are not actually Christians.

 

I am using the definition of Christian found in the Apostles and Nicean Creeds. Fundamentalists have a different set of criteria. Most importantly, Fundamentalism requires a literal, inerrant Bible. That is NOT in either of the foundational creeds in Christianity and it amounts to worship of a false idol -- a literal inerrant Bible being the false idol. Thus, Fundamentalism is a huge problem for Christianity, because it amounts to a Fifth Column subversion of Christianity.

 

But this is the science forums. In a way, science faces its own Fifth Column in those attempting to have science = atheism. The mistaken synedoche of having Fundamentalism stand for all of Christianity and all of theism is part of that Fifth Column effort. A way to fight those who attempt to make Fundamentalism all of Christianity or all of "theology", as the poster I responded to did, is to point out that Fundamentalism is NOT either of those. It's one way to avoid screwing up science by the attempt to pit science against religion. Or rather, by making science be atheism and falsely involving science in the theism vs atheism battle.

 

In my very strong opinion, the books Science Held Hostage, Science and Religion, Genesis and Geology and The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence should be required reading for all of those engaged in the interface between science and religon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing lucaspa knows a true Scottsman when he sees one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am using the definition of Christian found in the Apostles and Nicean Creeds.

 

No, you're not. That would mean those who believe in a benevolent creator god who became flesh in Jesus, died for humanity's sins, rose from the dead, and will grant eternal life to any who accept him. That is, in fact, what it says in the Bible, as well, so even a fundamentalist is still a "Christian" by that definition. What you've done is add a clause that they must accept scientific consensus, making the statement "Christians embraced evolution" merely tautological.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.