Apes vs. Man What are your thoughts??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
As it stands now, the technology might be there. However that brings up certain lines of ethical and moral question dealing with genetic tampering. The actual work wouldn't be that hard however. Simply replace the defective gene with one from an animal that can make viteman C. Scientists have already done cross species gene splicing. Insulin is a perfect example. Insulin used to be expensive, and fairly rare, considering the source was from corpses. However, human insulin is now produced in vast quatities by simple bacteria. They simply spliced in the gene , and the bacteria started producing it. It is now cheap, and widely available.
To change the DNA in a living and fully formed organism is probably difficult, if not currently possible. Perhaps in the future, a process for such modifications could be created and/or refined. I am not certain how advanced genetic engineering is right now.

---

I know this is off-topic, but could you replace the defective gene
in the gametes, and produce humans who can manufacture vitamin C ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BoneLady:
Many many Christians are evolutionists, although I'm not sure what you mean by "both" happening. Both what?

​

The fact that humans and modern African apes have evolved from a common ape-like ancestor is as definite a fact as it is possible to get in science (it is certainly way more than a "suggestion"!). There really is no doubt about it. There are disagreements about the details, such as specifically what paths and mechanisms this evolution took, but *that* humans have evolved simply is not a question any more (it hasn't been one for decades).

​

BoneLady

​

---

For most of us, yes ... it's the YEC's on this forum who object to
the evidence for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
To believe that a code can arise in a naturalistic medium is certainly a religious belief that requires far greater faith than believing in a code coming from an Intelligent Sender.

​

Perhaps you can identify one example of a code arising naturalistically in the history of man? The fact that there are no counter observations means that it is a valid law of nature that information cannot arise without a sender, or in a materialistic medium, as Dr Werner Gitt (an information scientist and Director at the German Institute of Technology) has proposed.

​

Information science is the nail in the coffin for Neo-Darwinism.

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 02-26-2002]

---

Sorry to point this out, but the basic problem with this reasoning,
and I have come across it before, is the belief that DNA
sequences are analagous to a 'code' (lay use of genetic code
aside).We perceive it as a code, because our brains function in a kind
of pattern recognition mode. We even see patterns in things (clouds,
flames, wood-chip wallpaper etc.) where no pattern genuinely
exists. It's in our nature to super-impose patterns over the
things which we observe. It's then up to our reasoning ability
to decide whether the pattern is genuine or an artefact of our
preceptions.So far as DNA goes::Only DNA sequences that favour life will cause life.Once the first of those got going (however that was) they replicated.Once replicating, they dominated the world.Once having dominion, they caused this debateThere is nothing far fetched about that. There is mounting
evidence that the first life 'could' (and I stress could) have
arisen through natural processes on the young(ish) earth.Some are even suggesting that the components of life originally
formed in deep space (which would go some way to explaining why
we get all those left-handed amino-acids) and came to earth
in comet-like blocks of ice during the formation of the solar
system.Saying that 'No codes arise without a sender' is the same as
saying 'Nothing complex was NOT designed.' It pre-supposes that
life WAS designed, otherwise life is the example of code/complexity
without a sender/designer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

To summarize, when scientists compare DNA between humans and simians, they arrive at a mutation rate that requires at least 40 offspring per couple average through the lineage! A recent study cited by evolutionist Scott Page yields a requirement of ~250!

---

Surely the calculations in the article you provided a link to
suggest that any offspring has a 1 in 40 chance of NOT being
subjected to a deliterious mutation, rather than that 40 offspring
would be required for this.The odds aren't stacked that badly in favour.Could you tell me how 'bad mutation' rates are calculated,
and how we detect 'good mutations' to suggest that they are more
rare ?I also noted that in the article you cited a 25 year generation.
What basis is there for this. In more primitive cultures (and even
not so long ago in western history) girls were normally expected
to start producing children much younger than 25.In prehistoric times one would tend to expect females to produce
offspring from the onset of sexual maturity at 11-14 (if the ages
were as now). Would this have an effect on the analysis ?And how do we know anything of the life-spans, sexual maturity, and
mutation rates in now extinct populations ?

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Since the originating biology thread is still strong I think maybe we should yield to them.

---

Not understanding you ?All I was attempting was a brief critique of the article as
read.Or did you mean this was being discussed elsewhere ?