|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Simple evidence for ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
when your classmate dies of heart disease or cancer, he realise that human beings are not perfect after all.
mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
different code words could have survival benefit in battles between competing tribes That is why the tribe that made up the "your momma is so fat" insult was able to spread its seed across the land...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Only humans---among all animals--have no "fur"...and have different articulations of expression in different areas of the world Actually that isn't true. Animals that show some degree of plasticity in their communication generally show geographic variation. For example, bird species whose song is learned from parents rather than purely instinctual tend to have different regional "dialects". There are lots of examples here Birds also don't have fur Cheers Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Hi Faith!
Faith writes: the idea is that we were created immortal and sin brought mortality ("the wages of sin is death"). Death is NOT normal and natural. If death is not natural but a consequence of original sin, then why do all animals die? Only humans sinned, and indeed only humans are capable of sin, because only humans have souls (as I understand the traditional Christian view). Why, then, do animals such as trees, plants, fish and cockroaches sensesce (get old), get diseases, and ultimately die? Are you suggesting that cockroaches and geraniums also ate of the apple?
Faith writes: There should be plenty of evidence for this gradual deterioration in our physical health from generation to generation. It should be recognizable in the genome. I believe it's certainly recognizable in the increase in diseases Quite the opposite, in fact. Human health is improved dramatically over the last century or so. Data from http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/Vitals/vi07a.htm Percent of children who died before first birthday in LA county: 1920: 7.362002: 0.55 data from http://www.ssha.org/...ite/presidential_addresses/haines.pdf Number of deaths per year per 100,000 people from TB, England and Wales: 1861: 2491964: 2.54 Number of deaths per year per 100,000 people from infectious diseases other than TB in Japan: 1899: 5121964: 45 To me, it looks like illness and death is perfectly natural, which is why improvements in nutrition, medicine and public health programmes result in these amazing figures. Best wishes, Mick This message has been edited by mick, 05-18-2005 01:35 PM This message has been edited by mick, 05-18-2005 01:36 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Hi Faith,
Faith writes: This is also true, but I think this is illusory overall. Our health has improved mostly by artificial means, through all kinds of medical interventions and drugs, but also improved nutrition, knowledge of healthy practices etc, which we wouldn't have without the luxuries we have here in the wealthy West.
Our health has improved by artificial means? What does that mean? Our health has improved entirely by natural means. It is not "artificial" to wash one's hands or have clean drinking water. Remember that mortality is meant to be a punishment. Why would God make a punishment that is amenable to medical treatment, and can actually be eradicated (i.e. smallpox)? It is interesting that the means to eradicate disease (secular humanism and science) are exactly those that you would consider unGodly.
Faith writes: Sure, but again I believe this masks the horrible fact that overall there is an underlying natural deterioration.
What horrible fact are you talking about here? The quoted mortality rates show that there is NO underlying deterioration, in fact there is an improvement. You appear to be proposing a gradual deterioration in our health that results in less chance of us being sick or dying. If that is a deterioration in health, then I'm all for it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Faith writes: I consideer these things [medical achievements of the 20th century] blessings of God, specifically given in great abundance to the West because of our obedience to Biblical principles Oh my, that's quite amusing! I guess those poor Africans who die of starvation and disease just don't cut the mustard when it comes to being religious! I guess AIDS is a punishment from God after all! Sorry, let's move on...
I think this is a question ultimately for the genetics lab. I think eventually this deterioration is going to have to be recognized at that level. Well, I really HATE to add grist to your mill, but you're quite right. Genomes are increasingly filling up with garbage (google repetitive elements). But there is a good Darwinian explanation for that. And it doesn't seem to hurt us too much. Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Faith writes: If "junk DNA" should turn out to represent all the capacities lost to the human race over the millennia since the Fall, think of the enormous numbers and kinds of adaptations we have lost. I mean that part of the DNA is some huge proportion of it, right? Hi Faith, unfortunately junk DNA doesn't represent that at all. It is largely composed of identical repetitive units that don't represent anything. Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Faith writes: Repetitive units of what? What chemically is going on there? There are some claims that parts of it DO seem to have some kind of function. And how would you know what might or might not once-upon-a-time have been there from the big nothing that is now there? I mean it LOOKS like DNA at first glance but a kind of blasted functionless DNA or something like that, right?
Hi Faith, I will only talk about repetitive elements ("junk dna") in mammals here, because that is all I know about. But I think the same principles apply to all eukaryotes (species with nuclei). In mammals there are two types of repetitive elements, SINES and LINES. SINES are "short interspersed elements" and LINES are "long interspersed elements". SINES are stretches of DNA around 300 nucleotide "letters" long, and LINES are stretches of DNA around 5-10,000 nucleotide "letters" long. Just to give you an idea of how small these elements are, the human genome is around 3 billion nucleotides long. When a normal gene gets converted into a protein, it first has to be transcribed. This process involves copying each nucleotide of the gene onto a single stranded RNA. The RNA sequence is the same as the DNA sequence, but it is loose, a separate molecule, and it can leave the nucleus of the cell and travel to the protein manufacturing areas outside. The genes themselves are always trapped inside the nucleus. There are some viruses that carry out this process in reverse. They exist as separate RNA molecules and they "reverse-transcribe" themselves into the genome itself. This just means that they insert copies of themselves into the nucleus. It's exactly the same process as turning a gene into a protein, but in reverse. In order to do so, they use an enzyme called "reverse transcriptase" which carries out the copying. The nucleotide sequence for this enzyme is part of the viral RNA molecule. It appears that some viral sequences have got caught in a loop inside the nucleus. During infection, they reverse-transcribed themselves into the nucleus long ago. Now, they occasionally transcribe themselves from DNA into RNA, but as soon as the process is completed, reverse transcription takes place, and a new copy of their nucleotide sequence is immediately inserted randomly back into the genome. These are the LINEs. They are of viral origin but are not infectious, because they are never able to leave the nucleus. LINEs consist of a bunch of ancient viral DNA, along with a copy of the reverse transcriptase enzyme. SINEs are little chunks of viral DNA that do not have a copy of the reverse transcriptase enzyme. They usually lie right next to a LINE, and when the LINE replicates itself, the SINE gets replicated along with it. SINES and LINES, together, make up about 35% of the human genome. This means that around one billion of your nucleotides, in every single cell, consists of millions of copies of LINEs and SINEs. This "junk DNA" does indeed have a function - all it does it replicate itself and insert copies of itself back into the genome. But it doesn't have a biological function in the cell that is useful for the animal "carrier". And it doesn't contain any old remnant genes. All it contains is millions of copies of old degraded viral DNA that all look more or less identical to each other. These can sometimes cause medical problems, for example if a LINE inserts itself smack in the middle of an important functional gene. This kind of random event is associated with heart disease and developmental abnormalities during pregnancy (and probably lots of other things). Some people consider "pseudogenes" to be junk DNA as well. These are old copies of genes that were randomly duplicated during cell division. They no longer serve any function in the cell, so just degrade over time to the point where they are barely recongisable. The number of pseudogenes is much lower than the number of SINEs and LINEs. Hope this helps! Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024