|
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 |
|
|
Author | Topic: How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
SpicyCurry Junior Member (Idle past 5540 days) Posts: 3 From: Ocala, Florida Joined: |
I always wonder how creationists are so comfortable picking a fight with only specific branches of science--the ones they're threatened by. No one disputes the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. No one questions the aerodynamic principles that allows planes to fly. Because if one did, even creationists would think them touched in the head.
I bet that despite all the arguing and disbelief if a geneticist told a creationist that their kids could suffer from Friedreich’s ataxia, they'd think twice about having kids. Anyway, I just read an article from 2005 that shows how the Chinese have already done--to a small extent anyway--exactly what this thread hypothesizes about: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...5_050125_chimeras.html Edited by SpicyCurry, : Forgot to paste about article
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2877 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains. I hope they don't teach them to fence..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4022 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
1) Successful human cloning 2) Successful creation of life from non-life 3) Successful breeding of human and chimpanzee/bononbo Dunno if I could stoop to bonking chimps. Tho` some of them females are mighty purty. Yes, sirree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
there's a country song making the rounds, with something like
"went home with a 10 at 2 and woke up with a 2 at 10" Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
cavediver writes: Or are you willing to stick your neck out and declare that it cannot possibly happen because chimps and humans are 'obviously' of different kinds? what if they use genetic engineering to accomplish it? will it prove anything, disprove anything>???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3129 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
what if they use genetic engineering to accomplish it? will it prove anything, disprove anything>??? Sexual reproduction is in fact natural genetic engineering i.e. recombining DNA from two genetically different hosts to make one new genetically different organism. The only difference between natural and artificial genetic engineering is skipping the nasty, sex part. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jigsaw207 Junior Member (Idle past 5539 days) Posts: 3 From: Amman, Jordan Joined: |
Hi, I'm new to this forum and to evolution also, I'm not creationist nor evolutionist I'm still reading and gaining more knowledge.
I was discussing evolution with one of my friends when he asked me the following question: Why evolution didn't produce species with sophisticated brain (similar or more intelligent) such as human kind ? human beings are the only species that have a very sophisticated brain is it a coincidence ? I would be grateful if you give me the scientific answer for this question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jigsaw207 writes: I was discussing evolution with one of my friends when he asked me the following question: Why evolution didn't produce species with sophisticated brain (similar or more intelligent) such as human kind ? human beings are the only species that have a very sophisticated brain is it a coincidence ? It's not coincidence that the species with the most sophisticated brain is the one most likely to be discussing its brain, as we are now! It's worth pointing out that there are other animals that could be regarded as being fairly close to us in terms of brain sophistication. We're not as special as we often like to think. Some intelligent mammals are more comparable to us than they are to, for example, lizards. Evolution could certainly produce other animals with intelligence of our level or above. It hasn't yet, but it hadn't produced us a few hundred thousand years ago, either. Dolphins have larger brains than we do, and they don't fight silly wars, so can we really be objectively sure that we're the most intelligent of the two?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Dolphins have larger brains than we do, and they don't fight silly wars, so can we really be objectively sure that we're the most intelligent of the two? And they carved "Goodbye and thank you for all the fish" on a glass just before the earth was destroyed to make way for a hyperspace station. Another species that quite likely had as much intelligence as well as a larger brain were the Neanderthals. The evidence is that they were capable of speech and buried their dead with ceremonies. They were driven to extinction, by all indications, by Cro-Magnon Homo sap because they were competition. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray jigsaw207,
I would be grateful if you give me the scientific answer for this question. What we see in other organisms is not a different type of intelligence\sophistication, but different degrees of intelligence such that the most intelligent of several other life forms overlaps the range of intelligence\sophistication in humans. Do a google on communication with animals and see how many articles there are. Look at Dolphin Silver Ring Art Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it. (thanks admin) by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jigsaw207 Junior Member (Idle past 5539 days) Posts: 3 From: Amman, Jordan Joined: |
Thank you RAZD and bluegenes for your answers, I find the idea of evolution attracting and plausible every time I introduced to one of its facts, evolution has a lot of evidence support it. on the other hand when I read something written by creationists or watch a documentary about the evidence of young universe and young earth I find it convincing also, they have scientific facts support their claim, so every time I try to investigate I get lost.
I don't want to be biased to one side, I'm searching for the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks jigsaw207,
... on the other hand when I read something written by creationists or watch a documentary about the evidence of young universe and young earth I find it convincing also, they have scientific facts support their claim, so every time I try to investigate I get lost. And the preacher, the politician and the used car salesman all sound convincing at one time or another. The problem is that when you personally know little about the subject, many arguments can seem reasonable. Advertising people make their livelihood by making their product seem reasonable. The evidence against a young earth is fairly simple to understand, and I'd be happy to walk you through it on the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) thread. We like to keep posts in a thread on the topic of the first post in that thread, and thus it would be off-topic to discuss it here. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ot by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SpicyCurry Junior Member (Idle past 5540 days) Posts: 3 From: Ocala, Florida Joined: |
Not to go off topic here, but how do creationists deal with the fact that human embryos exhibit certain stages of evolution during prenatal development? We call this ontogeny recapitulating hylogeny... where the development of the individual goes through some of the characteristics of the animals lower in the evolutionary development.
In the example of humans, the common ancestor of humans and monkeys had a tail, and human embryos also have a tail at one point; it later recedes to form the coccyx. Another example can be found in whales. Whales, which have evolved from land mammals, don't have legs, but tiny remnant leg bones lie buried deep in their bodies. During embryonal development, leg extremities first occur, then recede. Similarly, whale embryos have hair at one stage (like all mammalian embryos), but lose most of it later. Not only is ontogeny recapitulating hylogeny observed in humans, but it is also directly paralleled in other species. What more, this process can be clearly identified in images taken of early stage embryos, providing direct evidence--the lack of which creationists lament endlessly--and leaving very little ambiguity to interpretation. What say you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
SpicyCurry writes:
They whine about Haeckel faking drawings 130 years or so ago. Not mentioning that we have better images now, and that they show that the stages ARE similar. And that's basically it. Not to go off topic here, but how do creationists deal with the fact that human embryos exhibit certain stages of evolution during prenatal development? We call this ontogeny recapitulating hylogeny... where the development of the individual goes through some of the characteristics of the animals lower in the evolutionary development. I hunt for the truth What you can do in my country and get away with: Softdrugs? Legal!Legal drinking age? 16! Birth control (the pill)? Free! Gay marriage? Legal! Abortion? Legal! Euthanasia? Legal! Age of consent? 16 (14 if you have the parents permission)! Yep, only one way down for us!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
devilsadvocate writes: Sexual reproduction is in fact natural genetic engineering i.e. recombining DNA from two genetically different hosts to make one new genetically different organism. The only difference between natural and artificial genetic engineering is skipping the nasty, sex part yes that might be true within the same species, what is the evolutionary explanation of why there is a barrier preventing this happening between different species?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024