Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Apes vs. Man What are your thoughts??
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 68 (5632)
02-27-2002 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by gene90
02-26-2002 5:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
We might be making a mistake though, since our systems have been adapting to vitamin c as an essential nutrient suddenly producing it again might cause overdose.
Try it on monkeys first.

Gene! That would never work, DUH!
Don't you know anything about Baraminology?
Humans and primates aren't related AT ALL, so testing this gene therapy on primates first wouldn't give us ANY indication about if it might work in humans.
Specifically, it wouldn't work with Chimpanzees, for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by gene90, posted 02-26-2002 5:07 PM gene90 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 68 (5634)
02-27-2002 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Punisher
02-26-2002 11:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
Joz: I guess I would be described here as a minority YEC. I am certainly a laymen and confess to a non-scientific background. Yes, I get my reading material from AIG, ICR, etc. I would be happy to provide further details if needed but I think you can see where I stand from the brief intro.
To the topic at hand: Although this thread has already started to drift in another direction, my original question to bucane stands. As Christians, our worldview should start with God. I am curious to know his perception of the Bible.
As for my opinion, we see similarites between different species because we share the same Creator. As an example; I think we share the same tear duct as a chicken (someone may want to confirm that). However, to draw an evolutionary connection is a stretch. Although we see evidence for variation within a 'kind' of species (dog breeds), there is no evidence to support (today or fossil) change into a completly different kind (ape to human).

1) Why is it that, even though you admit to having minimal scientific knowledge, you feel comfortable dismissing the Theory of Evolution?
If you dismiss it on religious grounds, I have no complaint, but to make the kind of statements from personal incredulity that you have implies that you also somehow are attempting to object to the Theory on logical grounds, even though you admittedly do not know much about it.
That is quite a weak place to debate from, I hope you realize.
2) Since you are using the word "kind" in what seems to be a somewhat scientific sense, perhaps you can define "kind" for me.
What I really want to be able to do is to know how (what parameters and criterion to use) to tell one "kind" from another.
If you want to use the word "kind" in a descriptive, scientific way, first you must define it.
Thanks in advance.
Allison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Punisher, posted 02-26-2002 11:21 PM Punisher has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 68 (5636)
02-27-2002 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by LudvanB
02-26-2002 6:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
An interesting exemple would be some diseases that used to be fatal to man,like pneumonia,until we adapted to it. In the old days,it would kill almost anyone who caught it but nowadays,even untreated pneumonia is rarely fatal to anyone but the most frail of individuals.
I don't think we have adapted to pneumonia. Pneumonia kills plenty of people, and the reduction in deaths would be mostly due to better treatment and drugs.
A better example of our species adapting to a pathogen would be the AIDS virus.
There are individuals who test positive for exposure to the HIV virus, but never develop symptoms of AIDS, or develop them very slowly.
By looking at the DNA of these people, scientists have isolated a shared beneficial mutation. Due to genetic variation, some people in the population possess a mutation in the CCR(5) gene which causes these individuals to not develop AIDS if they have two copies of this mutant gene. If they have only one copy of the mutant gene, they have a very slow onset of AIDS.
The ancestry of the people carrying this HIV-resisting mutation is quite fascinating; they very strongly tend to come from countries which were affected by Bubonic Plague. Most of the world's population lacks this mutation.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LudvanB, posted 02-26-2002 6:37 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 2:32 AM nator has not replied
 Message 28 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 3:37 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 51 of 68 (5857)
03-01-2002 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by mark24
02-27-2002 4:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:

Schraf, Joz,
The "defective" gene has a 32 base pair deletion & about 10% of the caucasian population has that gene. It is a co-dominant gene, meaning if you are homozygous (have two of the mutant genes) you are even better protected against developing full blown AIDS. As Joz says, only 1% ish of caucasians get the double whammy protection (due to homozygosity). This rather puts paid to the idea that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from God, when there's a protection passed on genetically, itself subject to the random vagaries of mate selection.
The gene is very rare in other races, meaning the 32 base pair deletion occurred after the migration from africa. It is thought that the genes relatively high frequency could not be a result of AIDS, but must be a result of selective pressure due to other pathogens.
Mark

Like, cool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mark24, posted 02-27-2002 4:57 AM mark24 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 68 (6040)
03-03-2002 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Punisher
02-27-2002 7:41 AM


quote:
Allison: 1) Why is it that, even though you admit to having minimal scientific knowledge, you feel comfortable dismissing the Theory of Evolution? If you dismiss it on religious grounds, I have no complaint, but to make the kind of statements from personal incredulity that you have implies that you also somehow are attempting to object to the Theory on logical grounds, even though you admittedly do not know much about it.
quote:
I admit to not being a scientist;
I also admit to not being a scientist.
quote:
not that I am ignorant of the subject. My name is not Richard Petty but I can drive a car. My position of YEC comes from both my religious position and my study of the subject.
I think that your driving analogy is not quite right.
I think a better one is, "you can drive a car but you really don't know how the engine, transmission, or suspension, etc., work. Nonetheless, you feel comfortable holding strong opinions about exactly how to perform auto repairs.
At any rate, why don't you explain what study of Biology you have done which hasn't been from a religious source?
quote:
Allison: 2) Since you are using the word "kind" in what seems to be a somewhat scientific sense, perhaps you can define "kind" for me.
What I really want to be able to do is to know how (what parameters and criterion to use) to tell one "kind" from another.
quote:
Do you think a chicken and a pig are the same kind?
I could answer this in many ways, but I'll choose two.
1) Yes. They are both of the same 'warm-blooded vertebrate' "kind".
2) You didn't answer the question. You answered my question about exactly which criterion to use to determine what "kind" an animal is by basically asking me to make up my own criterion.
Specifically, are a chimp and an orangutan the same kind, [b]and how do you know without using the Bible?[b]
[QUOTE]Do you think an ape and a human are the same kind? What criterion would you use?
quote: If you want to use the word "kind" in a descriptive, scientific way, first you must define it.[QUOTE]
quote:
Perhaps we should define "kind" as those species which can reproduce together.
If this is your definition, then we have observed the evolution of new kinds.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Now, do you want to change your definition of "kind"?
quote:
I would say that a dog 'kind' and a cat 'kind' are two different 'kinds' because they cannot produce offspring together. Would you agree?
Sure, if that's how you want to define it.
quote:
So, apes and humans are different kinds.
Actually, it is not known if apes and humans could reproduce or not, so you cannot say that they are different kinds.
Also, ability to reproduce does not address other criterion, such as the field of genetics.
How do you account for the shared identical retroviral inserions in both the human and chimp genomes? Are you going to ignore this evidence?
quote:
As stated earlier, although we see great variety within a 'kind' of species, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an evoulution to a different 'kind'.
Wrong, as you have defined "kind". We have observed speciation. Here is a single example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century.
Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the species interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Punisher, posted 02-27-2002 7:41 AM Punisher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by bucane, posted 03-03-2002 1:41 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 68 (6053)
03-03-2002 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by bucane
03-03-2002 1:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by bucane:
[b]Quote
[Actually, it is not known if apes and humans could reproduce or not, so you cannot say that they are different kinds]
Why is it that we don't know this yet?? Moral Ethical Reasons??[/QUOTE]
Yes, exactly.
[QUOTE]I think that would be an interesting experiment to conduct. Then of course you would have to deal with the repercussions if the two species could interbreed. Would they produce a fertile or a sterile offspring?? And if it were fertile then would it be a sub-species of human or Ape?? Just thinking out loud, but interesting none the less[/b]
Dunno, but we do have different numbers of chromosomes (chimp and human) so we would probably produce infertime hybrids.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by bucane, posted 03-03-2002 1:41 AM bucane has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by wj, posted 03-03-2002 11:04 PM nator has not replied
 Message 61 by bucane, posted 03-03-2002 11:56 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 68 (6111)
03-04-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by bucane
03-03-2002 11:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by bucane:
schrafinator:
What is an "infertime hybrid"??

It's a hybrid with a typo!
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by bucane, posted 03-03-2002 11:56 PM bucane has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 03-04-2002 12:04 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 66 of 68 (6126)
03-04-2002 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mark24
03-04-2002 12:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
A hybrid with a point mutation!

EVEN BETTER!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 03-04-2002 12:04 PM mark24 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