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

Re: Windmill of Fortune

Expand Messages
  • mammot1h
    ... John: Funny! It s insulting to any omnipotent Designer to attribute to this obviously unintelligent & incompetent Supreme Being all the design flaws
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 2, 2009
      --- 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 2 of 8 , Feb 2, 2009
        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 3 of 8 , Feb 2, 2009
          --- 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.