There are trees that can out live people by a long shot though. They are not mammals,but they live,and are alive. Look at the Red Wood forrest. I am not sure that trees can sin? I don't think they do. But then again,I couldn't really know that could I? Mutations found in DNA are caused (in my opinion) by people who did not listen to God,when he said,O.K., you may now stop marrying relatives.Sin shortens life span.
Yes,but we humans have been known to make mistakes.
True enough. But as far as anyone can tell, we're the only ones to talk to. (After all anyone who says God exists is human themselves, and could be mistaken!)
Nobody's saying our knowledge is perfect. The point of the scientific methodology is that there's always a community of scientists looking over your shoulder, checking your work. That's the best way I can think of to keep the mistakes to a minimum, don't you think?
God is really there to talk to,the people just are not there. God didn't move away,people did. People really want proof,and they want evidence that they can see. Most people today believe that the bible is a bunch of fairy tales, yet little children can believe it. I don't know much about Psuedogenes,only that some people think they help prove God exists while others disagree.Desdamona
CrashFrog says (sorry, I don't know how to quote in the little boxes like you do. I'm new):
"This isn't exactly true. It's not (for instance) the fact that both apes and humans have pseudogenes that suggests common descent. It's the fact that they have a lot of the same pseudogenes. For instance apes and humans both have a broken gene that could synthesize Vitamin C if it worked. In both humans and apes, the gene is broken in the same place.
What process would break the gene in the same way, twice, in a number of seperate species? The obvious conclusion is that apes and humans share heredity to some degree."
So, combining Raymon's and Frog's logic, we can therefore conclude that the mutation pseudogenizing the gene for making vitamin C occured after the flood. Since all apes and humans share this mutation, they are all descended from a post-flood species, via speciation within "kinds". So, on the ark there was one representative of the ape/human "kind", which was either apelike or humanlike. Since we know human were there (Noah), this kind must have been human, and all apes are therefore descendents of Noah and his family, along with all of humankind. The logic is internally consistent, and therefore I will agree that the study of pseudogenes can shed tremendous light upon biblical history, including a novel and effective way for defining "kinds".
So, on the ark there was one representative of the ape/human "kind", which was either apelike or humanlike.
Or, both. After all since humans are apes, it's like you're asking for something "either doglike or mammal-like."
Also the problem that you have with this theory is that there are ape fossils. If all fossil sediment is a product of the flood, then we know that apes predate the flood and cannot be decendants of the humans on the Ark - they predate the Ark.
Added by edit: You say you're new, and your post is ambiguous, so let me just mention, I'm an evolutionist. I didn't write the above to support the Noaic flood, but rather, to show the inconsistencies in any attempt to reconcile a Biblical flood and human-ape heredity.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-24-2004]
Frog says: "Also the problem that you have with this theory is that there are ape fossils. If all fossil sediment is a product of the flood, then we know that apes predate the flood and cannot be decendants of the humans on the Ark - they predate the Ark.
Added by edit: You say you're new, and your post is ambiguous, so let me just mention, I'm an evolutionist. I didn't write the above to support the Noaic flood, but rather, to show the inconsistencies in any attempt to reconcile a Biblical flood and human-ape heredity."
Hmmm, the fossils are a problem for this theory. I was trying to come up with a hypothesis that would be consistent with the scientific evidence and the flood story. (Ignoring other evidence, like radiometric dating, etc., etc.) According to creationists, are ALL fossils from the flood? or do they still happen occasionally post-flood?
By the way Frog, I was trying to be deliberately ambiguous. I was playing devil's advocate with my own brain to see if I could tie in the pseudogene data with the flood story. I thought if I was ambiguous the thread would not immediately turn into a polarized angry shouting match as is often the case. I too, of course, believe in evolution.
Saying humans are the best at anything always strikes me as fishy. (Except for language, abstract reasoning, etc) After all, with humans we have a sample size of 6 billion individuals and we have a much better idea of when people were born. These two facts alone mean that we know the upper bound of our age with high percision. We have no such advantages when trying to determine the longest lifespan of other mammals. Add to that the fact that our technology is aimed at helping people live the longest. With domesticated animals our tech is aimed at getting the most use out of them. But these objections are based purely on theoretical ground. If you actually know of research that's looked into this, I'll of course bow to the evidence.
We have kept many many many animal in captivity for a long time. We have thousands upon thousands of biologists working around the world observing animal in their natural habitats. So far, not a single biologist have observed any mammal that could live as long as humans.
No, there is no single experiment that can show this. This conclusion was drawn out after centuries of observations of other animal species. Until someone actually find any mammal [edited from "animal" to "mammal"] out there that can live longer than human beings...