Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Windmill of Fortune

Expand Messages
  • Alan Saunders
    ... Ah. I thought it was just sloppy writing :-) ... Yes, it s fascinating to think that an intelligent agency went to all the effort to intelligently design
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 2 1:05 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "tykemorris"
      <tykemorris@...> wrote:

      >
      > Tyke: Either that or this deluded fellow is both Materialist and
      > Darwinist, sadly not an uncommon occurence.

      Ah. I thought it was just sloppy writing :-)

      >
      > Where will the clues lead? I think a quantification of how much force
      > is involved in intelligent animation is only a couple of decades
      > away, but on the biomedical and genetic engineering fronts, I see
      > great leaps forward once we shed the antiquated fallacies of the 19th
      > century. Currently we waste too much effort trying to fight upstream
      > against our own bodies, with medications that are intelligently
      > offset by the intelligent genetics of bacteria and other chemicals
      > that our bodies intelligently fight off causing counterproductivity.
      >

      Yes, it's fascinating to think that an intelligent agency went to all
      the effort to intelligently design bodies with the ability to fight
      off bacteria and chemicals and then intelligently designed the
      bacteria and chemicals in such a way that they constantly (and, one
      assumes, intelligently) overcome those intelligently designed
      defences. That either suggests multiple competing designers (perhaps
      one per species, even, each one vying to promote their own 'champion'
      at the expense of everyone else's), or a single designer with a
      particularly nasty sense of humour ('See, I give you an immune
      system!' ... 'See, I now design an organism that overcomes your immune
      system! LOL').

      Neither is a particularly appealing prospect.

      > I think one of the first branches of science to draw huge benefits
      > from a more accurate understanding of the role of intelligence in the
      > workings of living organisms is that of psychiatry,

      I would agree that intelligent design has much to offer people who
      work in the field of psychaitry, yes.
    • mammot1h
      ... John: Funny! It s insulting to any omnipotent Designer to attribute to this obviously unintelligent & incompetent Supreme Being all the design flaws
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 2 1:32 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Saunders"
        <alan.catherine@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "tykemorris"
        > <tykemorris@> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > Tyke: Either that or this deluded fellow is both Materialist and
        > > Darwinist, sadly not an uncommon occurence.
        >
        > Ah. I thought it was just sloppy writing :-)
        >
        > >
        > > Where will the clues lead? I think a quantification of how much force
        > > is involved in intelligent animation is only a couple of decades
        > > away, but on the biomedical and genetic engineering fronts, I see
        > > great leaps forward once we shed the antiquated fallacies of the 19th
        > > century. Currently we waste too much effort trying to fight upstream
        > > against our own bodies, with medications that are intelligently
        > > offset by the intelligent genetics of bacteria and other chemicals
        > > that our bodies intelligently fight off causing counterproductivity.
        > >
        >
        > Yes, it's fascinating to think that an intelligent agency went to all
        > the effort to intelligently design bodies with the ability to fight
        > off bacteria and chemicals and then intelligently designed the
        > bacteria and chemicals in such a way that they constantly (and, one
        > assumes, intelligently) overcome those intelligently designed
        > defences. That either suggests multiple competing designers (perhaps
        > one per species, even, each one vying to promote their own 'champion'
        > at the expense of everyone else's), or a single designer with a
        > particularly nasty sense of humour ('See, I give you an immune
        > system!' ... 'See, I now design an organism that overcomes your immune
        > system! LOL').
        >
        > Neither is a particularly appealing prospect.
        >
        > > I think one of the first branches of science to draw huge benefits
        > > from a more accurate understanding of the role of intelligence in the
        > > workings of living organisms is that of psychiatry,
        >
        > I would agree that intelligent design has much to offer people who
        > work in the field of psychaitry, yes.
        >
        John:
        Funny!

        It's insulting to any omnipotent Designer to attribute to this
        obviously unintelligent & incompetent Supreme Being all the design
        flaws exhibited in every organism on the planet, to include beetles
        with wings under covering that don't open & humans (plus monkeys &
        other apes) with muscles to move ears that don't move & with
        non-functional pseudogenes that don't make Vitamin C, setting us up
        for scurvy, unlike all other mammals, except guinea pigs, of course, &
        Indian fruit eating bats, whose genes are broken in different places
        from those of us primates.
      • mammot1h
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/abs/nature04072.html This article reported results as follows, from its abstract: Here we present a draft
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 2 4:24 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/abs/nature04072.html

          This article reported results as follows, from its abstract:

          "Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan
          troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have
          generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that
          have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from
          our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million
          single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and
          various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore
          the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping
          these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection
          acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of
          evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly
          correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly
          deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup
          to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of
          selective sweeps in recent human evolution."

          The most obvious gross chromosomal difference is the fusion of the two
          standard ape small chromosomes into larger human #2, with chimp-like
          telomeres fused in our centromere.

          Forty million changes (~20 in each line, ours & theirs) out of over
          three billion base pairs is not a lot (but more than 1.3%, since some
          involve more than one base pair). As noted, it's not that our genes
          (ie protein coding sequences) differ much, but more the control
          segments that time various developmental pathways, such as hair length
          & thickness growth.
        • mammot1h
          ... John (PS): To which I might add, that works out to only about three or four mutations or other heritable genetic changes (such as incorporating a viral
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 2 4:40 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "mammot1h"
            <mammot1h@...> wrote:
            >
            > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/abs/nature04072.html
            >
            > This article reported results as follows, from its abstract:
            >
            > "Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan
            > troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have
            > generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that
            > have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from
            > our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million
            > single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and
            > various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore
            > the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping
            > these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection
            > acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of
            > evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly
            > correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly
            > deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup
            > to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of
            > selective sweeps in recent human evolution."
            >
            > The most obvious gross chromosomal difference is the fusion of the two
            > standard ape small chromosomes into larger human #2, with chimp-like
            > telomeres fused in our centromere.
            >
            > Forty million changes (~20 in each line, ours & theirs) out of over
            > three billion base pairs is not a lot (but more than 1.3%, since some
            > involve more than one base pair). As noted, it's not that our genes
            > (ie protein coding sequences) differ much, but more the control
            > segments that time various developmental pathways, such as hair length
            > & thickness growth.
            >
            John (PS):
            To which I might add, that works out to only about three or four
            mutations or other heritable genetic changes (such as incorporating a
            viral genome) in each line per year, as we've been separate for around
            five to seven million years (~20 M / 5-7 M). Humans & chimp evolve at
            different rates at different times, but it's a fair ball park
            assumption to posit roughly equal numbers of alterations in each line
            back to our last common ancestor.

            Then there are the chromosomal rearrangements, most notably the fusion
            of two small standard ape chromosomes into our #2, which has been
            implicated in human locomotion. All great ape species use slightly
            different methods of walking. Ours might either preserve the ancient
            ape system better than the others, or might diverge the most from
            ancestral means of getting around on the ground, not that largely
            solitary orangs spend much time there.

            Until they learn to walk, human babies of course preserve vestigially
            (or atavistically) the instinctive behavior to grasp strongly, even
            though their moms carry them rather than letting their infants ride on
            them, holding onto their fur, which we generally lack.

            Most of the genomic sequence changes are neutral in effect under most
            conditions, but those that have been beneficial to either evolving
            chimps or humans will of course be selected in favor of & accumulate
            in our populations.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.