We're Really Chimps???

really? that's kind of sad.

yes. recent survey in one national park there found none in their habitat area. poachers, rebels, army, number of factors. not good. Andya posted it on another thread.

that breaks my heart.here i am with these idealistic notions about how a lot of fucking around will fix everything, and we got and kill them all off? how lame of us.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Chimps and humans shared a common ancestor. We might not be 'chimps' but we are apes.

The 'DNA folding' was probably actually a dna strand fusing event. We only have 23 dna strands, and Chimps have 24. However, if we analyse the
srands, there is one strand in the human geomne that is basically 2 strands in the chimp geomne that have been fused togather.

Juhrahnimo responds to me:

quote:

---

No, you can't assume the Creator's motives.

---

I most certainly can. What's the point of having a brain if I'm not allowed to use it? Humans are creators, too. And we're very good at it. We can recognize crap design when we see it.If it's stupid when we do it, why isn't it stupid when god does it?By your logic, we can't say to god, "But two and two does not equal five," because, after all, we cannot "assume the creator's motives." Never mind that it's wrong and you can prove it.

quote:

---

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).

---

What does this have to do with the retina? You don't give birth through your eyes. And there is a huge mix of other animals that have right side out and inside out retinas. What did the ones who have inside out retinas do to incur god's wrath? If god was cursing the animals, too, how did some of them manage to get away?Of course, Eve didn't sin. She couldn't. Sin requires knowledge of good and evil and she didn't have that at the time that she ate from the tree. When you have a precious Mhing vase that you don't want broken, you don't leave it on a wobbly pedestal in a room with a toddler. No matter how much you say, "Don't touch," the kid doesn't know any better. When you hear the crash, you don't blame the child. You blame yourself. You knew what was going to happen so you have nobody to blame but yourself.It isn't that Eve was stupid. It was that she was innocent.And that doesn't even begin to get into the fact that god LIED about the tree. How does one sin against someone who is lying right to your face? False premises lead to any conclusion you desire.

quote:

---

Mankind heaped sin upon sin on himself, so how do we know God didn't continue making changes as time went on?

---

Because the Bible doesn't say he did. You are assuming that when god said, "I will greatly increase the pains of your childbirth," that he somehow wasn't talking about just greatly increasing the pains of childbirth.Besides, you just changed your argument. Your original argument was that humans have inside out retinas because god so loved us that he gave us "protective" retinas. Now you're saying that we have inside out retinas because god so hated us that he painfully changed the morphology of humans.Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

quote:

---

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;

---

So why don't we all have right side out retinas? The cephalopoids do. What got them on god's good side that they got the good eyes back while we're still stuck with the crap design?You've changed your argument again.

quote:

---

Obviously, God made a CHANGE.

---

Incorrect. There is nothing in Gen 9 that indicates god changed a single piece of morphology. Fear does not reside in an organism's retinas.And why did this result in cephalopods getting right side out retinas again while chimpanzees got stuck with the crap design?You've changed your argument again.

quote:

---

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.

---

(*chuckle*)Just how old do you think I am?

quote:

---

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???

---

Not quite. The first 486SX chip was the result of someone at Intel who realized that they could sell more computers if they came out with a cheaper model. And by creating a "new" chip that didn't require any real change in the assembly line, they could get both ends of the market: Those who could afford the DX line and those who didn't have enough money to go quite that far.And the first 486SX couldn't be expanded. It took the second generation to get the 487s. And that, too, was nothing more than a marketing ploy. Sell two chips for the functionality of one. More money for Intel.

quote:

---

The SX chip wasn't DESIGNED out of stupidity

---

Of course not. It was designed out of greed. Anybody who heard what was really going on never bought an SX again. It's stupid designed foisted upon an unsuspecting public for no other reason than to fill the coffers of a technological conglomerate with a monopoly on the desktop.When you look at the design, it's stupid. You take a perfectly good chip and DISABLE PART OF IT. What the hell is the point of doing that? You're god. You can do anything. Why on earth would you ever create something that had extraneous parts that don't work?If it's stupid when we do it, why isn't it stupid when god does it?

quote:

---

it was a SALVAGED DX chip that couldn't pass inspection!!!!

---

Then what the hell was the point of the 487? Why design a motherboard with a second socket that takes a chip that is a DX without actually having the DX label on it? That requires the SX chip to be in the first socket in order to function? Why not just create a motherboard that has an SX socket and a DX socket and you put whichever chip you happen to have in the right socket and leave the other one empty?If it is stupid when we do it, why isn't it stupid when god does it?

quote:

---

The creation was made to be PERFECT.

---

So why isn't it? Why are there extraneous parts that don't work? Why is the design so piss poor? If we were perfect then we wouldn't have had any vitamin C pathway at all. Why did a broken pathway get added to the system?

quote:

---

You're trying to pick on God for what YOU THINK is poor design

---

Of course. If it's stupid when we do it, why isn't it stupid when god does it?Why are you getting so upset for using the brains god gave me?

quote:

---

Like examining a freshly totaled Mercedes, then blaming Mercedes for making a lousy car that won't run.

---

Incorrect. It's like examining a freshly totalled Mercedes and blaming Mercedes for making a lousy car whose brakes don't work and has an amazing tendency to have the steering wheel lock up when you hit 65 mph. Of course, it's going to crash.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Juhrahnimo responds to NosyNed:

quote:

---

The vitamin C thing was just PURE, ABSOLUTE thinking out loud

---

But I was the one who brought it up and I was most definitely not "thinking out loud." You need to respond to the point:Why would god choose to break the vitamin C pathways of certain animals and do it exactly the same way in humans and other apes but do it completely differently in hamsters and certain types of fish?Suppose you were trying to disable a key so that it wouldn't work in a specific lock. You could file down the ridges on the key, thus preventing the tumblers from lining up correctly. Or, you could bend or break off the tongue of the key, thus preventing it from even entering the lock.So why would you do the first to one set of keys (filing them all down in exactly the same way) and the other to a different set?Why is it humans and other apes have the exact same mistake while other animals have a completely different mistake?Shouldn't we all have the same mistake?And if the designer were truly intelligent, shouldn't we have an absent gene rather than a broken gene?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Juhrahnimo writes:

quote:

---

But for certain, God didn't make thorns and thistles as part of the creation either, but they showed up later for the reason mentioned.

---

That's not what the Bible says. Thistles and thorns are herbs bearing seed, after all, and god creates them before the fall. Some of them are really good to eat. Prickly pear is wonderful. The artichoke is a thistle.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Well, I've chosen to enjoy the games from the audience as I'm working on far too many projects at this point in my life. Responding to posts on this board is just barely off my priority list for the moment.But, since you think I'm so far off in left field regarding this "retina" issue, I'll engage you. But FIRST you must point me to the post(s) where you claim I made my "original argument" about the retina: If you can't point me to the post, or simply fail to respond this post, I'll assume our deal is off.

I think it wast The Literalist in post 24 who suggested retina design as a form of protection.I don't think you (Juhrahnimo) have discussed it.

I know.

Well, Rrhain deserves to be called on his error, if indeed he erred; but I would humbly submit a word of caution. It's really easy to mistake one participant for another when all you have to go on is an avatar and a username, especially when we're all so seamlessly taking up each other's argument. It might not be too long before you make the same mistake; all the rest of us here have done it.It's up to you but the level of fuss you decide to make or not make about it now will determine the degree of embarassment you're made to feel when you make the same mistake in the future.

Agreed, Crash. But Rrhain's tone was a little, well... Nevermind. Let's just say, had it been NosyNed, buzsaw, Sylas, or even you, my response would have been different. I'm not saying that's right, but in my line of work, I automatically (usually subconsciously) wear a different hat (communication style) depending on who walks into my office. Kind of comes with the territory after a while. I'm not saying that was the case this time; but then, maybe it was. Sometimes I type way too fast when I'm dealing with several things at a time (who doesn't?). I'm usually sitting here with a PC running, a wireless laptop often on my knee, as well as my wireless PPC blaring reminders, multiple phones, plus that darn cell phone that won't quit ringing. If I need a break I'll check what I've got going on Ebay and Amazon, and if I'm REALLY starting to lose it I check to see what's happening on . So now you probably think my office is a padded room with bars on the windows and a door that locks from the outside, right? Nope; I escaped from that place last summer and they're still trying to catch up with me (don't take me too seriously. You'll know when I'm serious. Then again, maybe not).
Anyway, we all need a bit of thick skin if we want to be on this forum (as you may have noticed by some railing posts against me from a couple of people). As a matter of fact, since you stated: ...I've already done that, been called on it (CharlesKnight) and it was trumpeted loudly. My skin was think enough to take it, though (hey, it was a DOHHH! moment of speedreading and typing too fast). But in THIS case, I didn't call Rrhain any names, make derog remarks about his physical or mental ability to read, or otherwise imply anything about his intelligence. Just tried to bring a smile to his face, perhaps (sorry about the thinly veiled attempt at humor). I know it's hard for a creationist to get a laugh out of some of the evos, but I try anyway. Not often though, because, honestly, the standards are quite different for each group (don't say you haven't noticed it; there's even a thread for it); for example, I humorously used the spelling "evilutionist" once (and wasn't even directed at anybody!) and it erupted into a hilarious food fight that even spread to another thread. But my "God" has been called everything from "bastard" to "stupid" and the faith he's authored has been called bullsh__t by evos, without creationists being allowed to get upset. Plz don't engage me on that here. Sorry for the tangent; my cellphone battery just died and can't find the charger!.But your point is, no doubt, well taken.

I would reccomend the use of smileys any time you're trying to be humorous.

"I tried to say that our DNA is very similar, but has important differences"Just an interesting noteThe genes you inherit from your mother and father are at a maximum only 93% similar and they are human genes.Hemoglobin in humans and chimpanzees are about 98% similar
but so is hemoglobin in slime molds (similar to humans) yet a slime mold is so very different from a human.A cloud, watermelon and a jellyfish are 98% water. To use evolutionary logic there is no difference(or little) between these three things. Yet what we see... the extra 2% makes a World of difference