Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   for TC
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 17 (5921)
03-01-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
02-28-2002 7:46 AM


Thanx Quicksink, though there are some points that I would like to say before we were to do discussion. Half of it involves radioisotopic dating, in which I have already asserted that I am not up to standards to debate this (I would be speculative on if you were to know the information needed to deal with it also), though there are some other points in the post that I would deal with without regard to radiometric dating, if you would put them into your own words unless the quoter is here to argue.
--(added by edit) also, what would you like to name the topic, in the other forum it was starting to get out of hand, reaching for validity in other arguments and subjects straying the initial question. What is that question?
-------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 02-28-2002 7:46 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 03-03-2002 12:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 17 (6068)
03-03-2002 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
03-03-2002 12:15 PM


"A literal Biblical interpretation might not embrace this approach."
--I've seen this explination at times, I don't really agree with it though, and is definantly stretching it quite a bit. There isn't a problem with getting them to live 900 years, though I have encountered the problem of whether they did or not considering dates of various civilizations and the like, which leads you off into the validity of radioisotopic dating. I do not think that it is too wize to say that A could not have happend because of B when, for this to be true, B must be correct. I think there is evidence enough in the fossil record, but there are other conflicting objections that I would like to deal with, though I have yet to get into radioisotopes and the age of the earth.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 03-03-2002 12:15 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-03-2002 5:18 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 17 (6070)
03-03-2002 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Darwin Storm
03-03-2002 5:18 PM


"I think the problem with a 900 year life span is not only improbably, it has never been scientifically documented."
--Living to such an age is not exaclty improbable.
"Babylonian legends and history greatly expanded their rulers life spans as well, though no one doubts that these were exagerationgs, since fossil records don't bear this out.
You can't make an arguement that things were diffenent back then without solid evidence to back it up. It would be like me saying that people used to be able to fly because gravity worked differently back then. However, without solid evidence, that would be a hard sell, don't you think? True, humans can live past a hundred years, but I believe the oldest recorded lifespan in recent times is 127. Quite a long step between 127 and 900 years. If you want to establish such an age, you need observable evidence. If you have data supporting such a life span, please share it, especially if it is genetic material. I am sure the biotech industry would be estatic to get their hands on such a sample."
--Yes genetics plays a major part in these life-spans, they have experimented on different animals and seen life-spans double and tripple, I'll quote myself from earlier (these are a bit long so please forgive me!):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--I would be happy, it is a simple concept really. I believe I have already gone over this in a nother forum anyways, but I will emphesize again. It is very possible that a human could have lived to 600 and even 950 years old as the bible portrays. Do you know why we die of old age? Because our parts wear out, and cells stop reproducing themselves.
AiG - Countdown to Death - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4082.asp
"The ‘capping’ at the end of each chromosome (called a telomere) is, like the capped tips of shoelaces, necessary to prevent the ends fraying. The telomere shortens with each cell division once the limit is reached, the cells can no longer divide. This is probably only one way in which our limited lifespans are ‘programmed’ into us. There is no biological reason at all why people could not live much longer than they do at present, if they had the appropriate genetic makeup.
It has long been known that there are human cells that can keep on dividing forever cancer cells. These appear not to have the built-in ‘switch’ which tells cells to stop dividing, so they keep on making copies of themselves. This is why medical labs, which need to use human cell lines in their work, can be continually supplied with cells which are all the ‘offspring’ of one unfortunate person’s cancer. (Called HeLa cells, after Henrietta Lacks, the lady whose cancer it was). The HeLa cell line is effectively ‘immortal’ (unless existing HeLa cells were to all be physically destroyed).
Recently, laboratory results based on an enzyme3 that is involved with the replication of the telomere, have caused much excitement. Modified human cell lines have divided many times past their limit. Some speculate that such manipulations could cause people to live to much longer ages, providing they do not succumb to disease or accident in the meantime. Aging is certain to be much more complex than these simplified discussions, based on preliminary findings, might lead us to think. However, the evidence so far strongly suggests that genetics plays a major part."
"but the fact is that cancer cells are deadly to human life so they certainly do not allow us to live 900 years."
--I think you are missing the point, the point I was making is that we easily could have lived to 600-900 years in that day unless we were inflicted with a disease or was killed by some physical force, ie fall off a cliff, drown, violent actions, etc. Cancer cells are simply cells that can reproduce continuously, as if our cells had this ability we could live for a very long time. The cause of this happening could have been a mutational effect, then after the tower of babel the bottleneck would have made this negative gene take the place of the original gene allowing cells to produce continuously. [/Quote]
--Here is some information and reading on this enzyme activity in its shortening telomerase:
"This enzyme, called telomerase, was discovered in 1980 by the winner of the 1998 Australia Prize, Prof. Elizabeth Blackburn. Without telomerase, cells cannot copy their ‘caps’."
New Scientist: November 22, 1997, p. 7; January 3, 1998, p. 6; February 7, 1998, p. 14; February 28, 1998, p. 23.
‘Can science beat the body clock?’ Sunday Times (London) January 18, 1998, p. 15.
‘Extraordinary lifespans in ants: a test of evolutionary theories of aging’, Nature 389:958—960, 1997.
‘Why do we age?’ U.S. News & World Report, August 18—25, 1997, pp. 55—57.
‘Genetics of Aging’ Science 278(5337):407—411, 1997.
--As I would also get frustrated if I did not have these resources, here is a web page that seems to be focused on the telomere:
http://resolution.colorado.edu/~nakamut/telomere/telomere.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Here are two clips from a site (that definantly isn't creationist associated) on the effects of the telomere and telomerase:
Aging is a Specific Biological Function Rather than the Result of a Disorder in Complex Living Systems: Biochemical Evidence in Support of Weismann's Hypothesis
- http://puma.protein.bio.msu.su/biokhim....394.htm
quote:
A concept postulating that aging is a specific biological function that promotes the progressive evolution of sexually reproducing species is reviewed. Death caused by aging clears the population of ancestors and frees space for progeny carrying new useful traits. Like any other important function, aging is mediated by several molecular mechanisms working simultaneously. At least three such mechanisms have been postulated thus far: 1) telomere shortening due to suppression of telomerase at early stages of embryogenesis; 2) age-related activation of a mechanism that induces the synthesis of heat shock proteins in response to denaturing stimuli; and 3) incomplete suppression of generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) with inadequate scavenging of already existing ROS. None of these phenomena can kill the organism, but only weaken it, which becomes crucial under certain extreme conditions. This mechanism of age-induced death can be compensated for (within certain time limits) by several positive traits that greatly increase the evolutionary potential of species capable of performing this function. Similarly to apoptosis (programmed cell death), the programmed death of the body can be called "phenoptosis". Aging presumably belongs to the category of "soft" (extended in time and allowing a certain degree of compensation) phenoptosis, in contrast to "acute" phenoptosis; the death of salmon females immediately after spawning is a good example of the latter.
quote:
A. M. Olovnikov formulated the problem of terminal underreplication of linear DNA molecules in 1971 [10-12]; this phenomenon is caused by the inability of DNA polymerases to replicate several nucleotides at 3 ends of DNA templates. Olovnikov also suggested that a specific biological mechanism should normally prevent this phenomenon. This mechanism was expected to be active in gametes, cancer cells, as well is in cells of vegetatively reproducing organisms. In most other cases, e.g., in many human somatic cells, this mechanism is suppressed.
Further studies revealed an enzyme called telomerase [13, 14] (whose existence had been predicted by Olovnikov) that compensates for DNA shortening in the mentioned cell types. The function of telomerase is to add a repeated sequence (in humans, the hexamer TTAGGG), which forms the so-called telomere, to ends of nuclear DNA. After this, underreplication of the linear DNA molecule only shortens this nontranscribed sequence of the telomeric fragment of the chromosome without damaging the genetic information or the mechanism that reads it.
--Here is where you can get more information on the effects of telomere and telomerase as I previously gave:
http://resolution.colorado.edu/~nakamut/telomere/telomere.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-03-2002 5:18 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 17 (6072)
03-03-2002 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Darwin Storm
03-03-2002 5:47 PM


"Bah, my spelling is atrocious today. "
--Thats no problem, happens to me rather frequently, people were getting rather edgy about it in the 'Afterlife' Thread. I cannot open up any of my word pad's because of a virus that I am too lazy to get rid of, so I have a problem there.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-03-2002 5:47 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024