Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We're Really Chimps???
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 92 (177458)
01-16-2005 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Juhrahnimo
01-16-2005 12:41 AM


No, wait; they already changed that idea (more and more JUNK DNA is turning out to be VERY useful DNA after all, but nevermind that).
"Junk" is somewhat of a bad or loaded term; it would be better to describe it as non-protein-encoding DNA, which we're discovering has regulatory or structural functions, sometimes.
But here's the thing. We're actually discovering that more of our DNA than we thought before is that non-protein or "junk" DNA, not less. We're revising the human gene counts downward.
But that's off-topic. Interesting, though.
But, what did the chimps evolve from?
The same thing we did - our shared common ancestor, itself an ape. We did not ourselves evolve from chimps. Evolution is a bush, not a ladder.
But we're not chimps. That humans are reproductively isolated from chimps should be obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-16-2005 12:41 AM Juhrahnimo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-16-2005 11:57 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 92 (177579)
01-16-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by TheLiteralist
01-16-2005 2:34 PM


Re: Can we assume the Creator's motives in design?
If we can't, then what's the point in talking about it? If it was the intention of the Creator to make things look like they evolved, then shouldn't we be talking about them like they evolved?
Hmmm...the photon loss, for me, has caused relatively few problems.
That you're aware of. Since no human being has ever had optimum eyes, who's to say what you're missing? Imagine being a blind man in a world of blind men. Would you have any reason to feel like you were missing something?
Something else to consider is that, if the Bible is true, then we are no longer living in the original, optimal edenic environment...the Flood, which I'm not assuming you believe, destroyed that.
By what mechanism would water reverse our retinas?
After the Flood the resulting environmental damage has caused our life span to diminish down to the 100 years we experience (if lucky) today.
How? For instance how does water break functional genes in our genetics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-16-2005 2:34 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 92 (177731)
01-17-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Juhrahnimo
01-16-2005 11:57 PM


That sounds pretty important; certainly not worthy of being called junk.
As I said, "junk" is a misleading term.
I buy into that, but I thought someone from your camp wrote a post about humans being directly related to chimps because we share the same broken GLO gene (or whatever DNA sequence).
We are directly related. For instance, you're directly related to your sister, not because you're the decendant of your sister (unless you live in Arkansas - snap!), but because you and your sister share a common ancestor. (In this case, your parent.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-16-2005 11:57 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 92 (179806)
01-22-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Juhrahnimo
01-22-2005 8:25 PM


A word of caution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-22-2005 8:25 PM Juhrahnimo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-23-2005 12:20 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 92 (179832)
01-23-2005 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Juhrahnimo
01-23-2005 12:20 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-23-2005 12:20 AM Juhrahnimo 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