|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: We're Really Chimps??? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: If you want to "more serious in future" and have people actually consider your posts in good faith, you many want to use the correct spelling of Evolutionist.
quote: Em...yes? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-16-2005 20:04 AM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-16-2005 20:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
I've already apologized (on another post) for being over-facetious. I'll be more serious in the future. But thanks for pronouncing such harsh judgement upon me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
It was a response to Literalist, thus the spelling evilutionist. I have use the term several times on other posts in response to evolutionists and have spelled it correctly out of respect. I think I can use some friendly code language, which is better than foul language that some of your people use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Well, all that has CHANGED recently! What a surprise! They have found JUNK DNA plays a VERY important role after all!
What very important role would that be? For an example, tell us what function the GLO or urate oxidase pseudogenes have in apes and people. I'm aware of the Hirotsune, et al., paper in Nature in 2003 that was the first-ever documentation of a "use" for a pseudogene. Do you have more recent information that shows "a VERY important role" for any others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
TheLiteralist responds to me:
quote: And how would you know? You are physically incapable of telling the difference.
quote: No, they don't. We build cameras that don't have this problem and they don't go nuts when taking pictures. You act as if the inside-out retina is somehow "protecting" the photopigment network. But why would it need protecting? There is no indication that it does.
quote: No. Again, we build cameras that don't have this problem. Why would the eye be any different?
quote: No, only two, really: Stupid designer.Cruel designer. quote: The Flood is a physical impossibility. Besides, if we believe what you are saying about the Flood, there was more water in the air than there is now. If we're going along with your claim that the cephalopoid eye is right side out because the environmental conditions allow for filtering, then humans should have also received a right side out retina due to the amazingly water-laden air they were living in (and, of course, gills to breathe it since there would be more water than any other gas.) So by your logic, the designer should have given us right side out retinas. Why don't we have them? Stupid designer.Cruel designer. quote: Since other organisms in the same environment don't have the same structural flaws, one wonders why we, his most beloved and closest creation, got stuck with them. As I directly said, we don't need to be the strongest or the fastest. I'm just wondering why there is so much stupid engineering of the morphology. We don't need to have the most densely packed retina that would be capable of letting us see vastly more detail. We don't need to have lenses that never harden and cloud over time leading to presbyopia and cataracts. But why on earth is our retina inside out when there is no reason for it to be that way?
quote: So god is an evil, cruel bastard. If that's the kind of deity you wish to worship, you go right ahead.
quote: Which, by your logic, would have necessitated right side out retinas and gills, neither of which we have. Stupid designer.Cruel designer. quote: Incorrect. I directly said the opposite. We don't have to be the strongest or the fastest. But a designer that does stupid things is, well, stupid. Why do we have a BROKEN GLO gene? If god meant for humans to be unable to synthesize their own vitamin C the way pretty much every other mammal can, why did he put a BROKEN genetic sequence in our DNA? Why not just leave it out altogether? There are literally hundreds of these pseudogenes in our DNA. Stretches of code that are broken in us but functional in other species and completely absent in others. So why on earth do we have them? It isn't like the chromosome needs to have them in there. So if we weren't supposed to be able to synthesize vitamin C, why do we have all the structures to do it with a single part broken so that it doesn't work? Do you remember the Intel 486 and 386 processors? They came out in two different versions: DX and SX. The difference between the two was whether or not it had a math co-processor. The DX had it and was more expensive while the SX didn't and was less expensive. But here's the thing: The SX actually had the math co-processor. It was just non-functional. They disabled it. As a result, it consumed less power, but why on earth would Intel create such a beast and then sell it for less? After all, the process of making an SX chip is to first create a DX chip and then disable the co-processor. It actually takes more labor to create the SX chip, and yet it costs less. Note, Intel did not advertise this fact to the consumer. Instead, they simply told people that it didn't have a math co-processor (which, in some sense, is true.) The 486SX system was designed to be upgradable, though. You could buy a 487SX chip to insert into the motherboard that would, as far as the consumer was concerned, give the 486 a math co-processor and the two chips together would be functionally equivalent to a 486DX. But here's the thing: The 487SX was actually a fully functional 486DX chip. It turned off the 486SX and did all of the integer and floating point calculations itself. However, you could not run the 487 on its own. You had to have the 486 in the system. Again, Intel did not advertise this fact to the consumer. It is widely considered that Intel was nuts to do this. But when you have a defacto monopoly, you can do pretty much whatever you want. But don't you think if the consumer knew about this, they would have called Intel on its greed? Do you not agree that it is stupid engineering to create a chip and then hit it with a hammer? Do you not agree that it is stupid engineering to then take this broken chip and add the full chip alongside it which cannot run unless it turns off the broken chip? This is what we see inside the human genome. If it's stupid when we do it, why isn't it stupid when god does it? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Yet, for the cephalopoids, the water is already filtering out many photons and, so they get a reversed design to make up for that fact? Just a guess.
Won't somebody think of the poor fishes and whales with their "designed-for-air" retinas???!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Some questions.
What evidence is there that the design reduces photons or offers protection? Why is a design that has a blind spot better than a design that does not have a blind spot? How does ID (Incompetent Design) explain how cephalapods see so well when out of the water? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
Oh, I'm just going by different things in the news that I see. I can't verify anything, don't look now, NEITHER CAN YOU. You only CHOOSE to believe what you WANT to believe. Just like voting republican, democrat, or whatever; YOU CHOOSE to believe the candidates or not. Since I don't keeps NOTES on news articles I read, I can't give you anything off the top of my head. But a quick web search will help you shake the rust loose for you. For example, an article in the BBC offers bits like:
BBC.com writes: But whatever their function is, it is clearly of great importance.... "These initial findings tell us quite a lot of the genome was doing something important other than coding for proteins," Professor Haussler said....He added: "I think other bits of 'junk' DNA will turn out not to be junk. I think this is the tip of the iceberg, and that there will be many more similar findings." Hey, don't look at me... I'm just going by what scientists are saying. And that article is from last MAY 2004, so it's not exactly breaking news. Here's another interesting article about Junk DNA that has crazy dates going back to 1994 and 1996. Interesting reading. How much of it do I believe? Idunno. And neither do scientists. They just have to keep the information moving so they can keep getting their government grants (paid for by you and me, yes!).And the web is FULL of this topic (rethinking Junk DNA, etc). I'm surprised you act so surprised.... Based on the info that's I see out there right now, I could cut and paste web info for hours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: Why do we have a BROKEN GLO gene? If god meant for humans to be unable to synthesize their own vitamin C the way pretty much every other mammal can, why did he put a BROKEN genetic sequence in our DNA? Why not just leave it out altogether? No, you can't assume the Creator's motives. But you CAN read what the Biblical record states and draw some conclusions. First, Eve was made to be perfect. But after she sinned, God CHANGED SOMETHING that caused her body to go through extreme pain when giving birth (pain didn't exist before the fall). God also CHANGED something to make the earth bring forth thorns and thistles. God couldn't just let Adam's sin go unpunished, or he would not be a just God. Should god have given Adam a spanking instead? Mankind heaped sin upon sin on himself, so how do we know God didn't continue making changes as time went on? The Biblical record (wether you choose to believe it or not) indicates that God shortened our lifespans (which required a CHANGE in perhaps, DNA or our environment, or both, or more) because we seemed to get more and more evil the longer we lived. God decided that 70 or so years was enough time to decide if we would follow him or not. God continued to make changes every so often, and includes the animal kingdom (over which we were given dominion). God includes ALL of creation when he deals with us; notice what he said to Noah after the flood:
Gen. 9:9-10 writes:
Wow, hot stuff, eh? And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And look at what God else did:
Gen. 9:2-3 writes:
Obviously, God made a CHANGE. Changes in DNA perhaps? Or changes in areas that we have yet to discover or even imagine? To your specific question about the broken GLO, maybe it had something to do with Adam's fixation with a certain tree? Beats me. But I don't call God stupid or vile names. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things... As for your 486SX analogy, you might want to check your history a little better rather than reading too-young-to-remember-college-kid essays reporing on what they got out an encyclopedia or cliff notes. The original 486SX chip was nothing more than a full blown 486 chip that FAILED to PASS quality control testing! The first 486SX chip was the result of someone at INTEL (who was most certainly smarter than either one of us) who realized that they didn't really need the math co-processor so why throw it in the garbage??? Just sell it cheap! They even realized some of the benefits of the SX like lower power consumption, and laptop useage. The SX chip wasn't DESIGNED out of stupidity; it was a SALVAGED DX chip that couldn't pass inspection!!!! Intel didn't promote the "vulcanized rubber" type mistake/discovery idea because they wanted to look "smart". But the more they talked, the dumber they sounded so they just dropped it and decided not to tell anyone anything (as you mentioned.)And MAN is basically a salvaged, fallen creation. Sorry, but we did it to ourselves (and we keep it, and keep it up, and keep it up.) The creation was made to be PERFECT. It was cursed for the sake of our disobedience, rebellion against, and rejection of, God. You're trying to pick on God for what YOU THINK is poor design, when you're actually looking at a fallen creation. Like examining a freshly totaled Mercedes, then blaming Mercedes for making a lousy car that won't run.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
You might also want to check out the excellent POST # 13 on this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
CF writes: "Junk" is somewhat of a bad or loaded term; it would be better to describe it as non-protein-encoding DNA, which we're discovering has regulatory or structural functions, sometimes. Regulatory or structural functions. That sounds pretty important; certainly not worthy of being called junk. Awesome post, CF. Might want to let Corgyps know; I think he/she was looking for an answer like this. I tried my best earlier in a different post, but your post is better (said more with fewer words). Wish I would have read this first.
CF writes:
I buy into that, but I thought someone from your camp wrote a post about humans being directly related to chimps because we share the same broken GLO gene (or whatever DNA sequence). Or did I misunderstand, or is that just incorrect information?
We did not ourselves evolve from chimps
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I buy into that, but I thought someone from your camp wrote a post about humans being directly related to chimps because we share the same broken GLO gene (or whatever DNA sequence). Being related to does not imply being descended from. Chimps and humans are very closely related. But that is because we both descended from a common ancestor. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Can I clarify?
You are saying that one of the punishments of Adam was removal of the ability to synthesize his own vitamin C right? That God did this not by removing the gene but by breaking the gene in just the way a mutation would. That he also for some reason broke the chimps gene in the same way. However he left other animals with the same gene intact so that it still works. Does that mean that the chimp is somehow special in God's eyes? Is he really how brother, also made in God's image? He is pretty similar isn't he come to think of it. Did God do this in just the way that one would expect when examining other genes that we share with these animals if we and they evolved together from ancestors in the more and more distant past? Why is that? Why does it keep looking like the evolutionary explanation? God could have removed the ability any way he wanted to. But for some reason he choose just the way that makes sense in an evolutionary context and fits with all the other things we know about us and chimps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That sounds pretty important; certainly not worthy of being called junk. As I said, "junk" is a misleading term.
I buy into that, but I thought someone from your camp wrote a post about humans being directly related to chimps because we share the same broken GLO gene (or whatever DNA sequence). We are directly related. For instance, you're directly related to your sister, not because you're the decendant of your sister (unless you live in Arkansas - snap!), but because you and your sister share a common ancestor. (In this case, your parent.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Certainly Bonobos would qualify based on their sexual behavior alone actually, i'm of the opinion that their sexual behavior and society is far more advanced than humanity. they don't fight, from what i hear. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-17-2005 05:23 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024