Where do you stand on common ancestory and why?

[Pats]

But then I suspect the question wasn't a big one for the ancient Hebrews. The Bible doesn't really deal in philosophical concepts; it's much more down to earth and practical.

In my opinion, I would have thought it to be the opposite. Well, perhaps not so philosophical as metaphorical.

For instance, the Jews did not understand Jesus' meaning when he said "This temple will be torn down and I will rebuild it in three days."

Patsy

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

In my opinion, I would have thought it to be the opposite. Well, perhaps not so philosophical as metaphorical.

For instance, the Jews did not understand Jesus' meaning when he said "This temple will be torn down and I will rebuild it in three days."

Patsy

That at least strikes me as a case of something being obvious in hindsight.

Also, as Aslan* points out, we humans are quite adept at not understanding things we don't want to.

*My son is currently reading the Narnia series.

 

[Pats]

My son is reading the Narnia series too.

I am not sure that certain Hebrew officials ever understood Jesus.

 

[artybloke]

In my opinion, I would have thought it to be the opposite. Well, perhaps not so philosophical as metaphorical.

There's a big difference between being "metaphorical" and "philosophical" in the sense of the abstract mental gymnatics of the Greeks. The Jewish world was full of symbols and metaphors; but they didn't go in for the kind of abstruse meanandering about subjects such as "how do we know things", "is spirit eternal?", "what is natural and what is unnatural?" etc...

 

[Pats]

There's a big difference between being "metaphorical" and "philosophical" in the sense of the abstract mental gymnatics of the Greeks. The Jewish world was full of symbols and metaphors; but they didn't go in for the kind of abstruse meanandering about subjects such as "how do we know things", "is spirit eternal?", "what is natural and what is unnatural?" etc...

That's a good point. The point I was getting to, and not doing that great of a job at it, was that I don't think the Pharasees and Saducees (sp?) ever really understood the metaphores of Jesus or past prophecies, at times.

Nicodemus had a very hard time with the concept of "being born again."

The Jews as a whole, who didn't become follower of The Way/Christ, probably never fully understood the prophecies, maybe even to this day.

 

[Willtor]

If ancient Hebraism was monist, it was an awfully strange form of monism, though. They were not ontologically monist (God and Man, or God and Nature). They were certainly not ethically monist (Obedience and Disobedience, or Faithful and Unfaithful). One could argue they were epistemologically monist in some ways, but it has been argued that their study of epistemology was not well-developed (as it was, for example, with the Greeks).

Again, the first person I consider when I think of monist Judaism is Spinoza. And I think he was merely recognizing that Judaism was not dualist. I could be mistaken, but I think all discussion of monist Judaism stems from his work.

 

[Pats]

Wiltor, I'm having a hard time because I'm not really familiar with the way your using the term "monist" here. Care to spell things our for the laymen?

 

[Willtor]

Yeah, basically monism affirms the essential unity of things. This is as opposed to dualism which affirms their essential distinctness. Things can have varying degrees of monism or dualism, too. The most extreme monist perspective I've ever studied is philosophical Buddhism. There is a denial of intrinsic distinctions, altogether.

There are also different realms to which monism and dualism can be applied. One can apply it (as I did in my last post) to ontology, or ethics. I think ancient Hebraism looks monist because our society is largely dualist. If we grew up in a predominantly monist society, I think Hebraism would look dualist to us.

 

[jereth]

I suspect they were monists in practice, though.

Their great respect for the bodies of the dead is testament to this. For eg., Joseph's insistence (Genesis 50) that he his bones be returned to Canaan.

 

[jereth]

If ancient Hebraism was monist, it was an awfully strange form of monism, though. They were not ontologically monist (God and Man, or God and Nature). They were certainly not ethically monist (Obedience and Disobedience, or Faithful and Unfaithful).

Agreed. But you can be monist about some things and dualist about others -- I don't consider that "strange". As you say, the Hebrews were dualist with regard to Creator/created and right/wrong. However, with human nature they were almost certainly monist -- they didn't divide human nature into material/immaterial. They were also monist with regards to sovereignty -- Satan is portrayed not as an evil counterpart to YHWH, but as a being who ultimately submits to the will of YHWH.

Again, the first person I consider when I think of monist Judaism is Spinoza. And I think he was merely recognizing that Judaism was not dualist. I could be mistaken, but I think all discussion of monist Judaism stems from his work.

I admit I've never heard of Spinoza. When I said ancient Hebrews were monist I was only referring to their view of human nature.

 

[kenneth558]

Pats, you said you would be interested in my response to Robert, so here it is:

Here I responded to a post of yours that was very similar to the above.
I wrote:

Can you think of a reason or two why the molecular results of DNA, e.g. cytochrome c, have been used rather than the DNA itself?

(Starting with the fact that most animals haven't had their DNA sequenced...)

And you make this statement based upon what?

Provide a citation that predicts the level of similarity for a particular well understood measurement, providing an explanation for this prediction based upon evolution.

So you are claiming that for e.g. human and chimps, there are grossly more differences than similarities?
Again by what measure?
And what paper has made this claim?
​

This time I would appreciate a response, not a hit and run.

Can I think of a reason that the products of DNA are used to skew the pure DNA evidence? Yes. Bias against the evidence of DNA. Robert seems to be implying that there is some technological barrier to obtaining DNA sequencing that makes cytochrome c sequencing the most thorough means of molecular analysis possible. That's just plain BULL! If DNA sequencing showed what evolutionists want it to, they would be using it and it alone. Period.

I think it is worthwhile to point out that the Human Genome Project, and all the other genome projects being done, as well as the cytochrome-c and similar work that was done prior to the HGP, are not pursued to "prove" evolution. They are done, among various other reasons, to better understand evolution.

If you want an idea of what kind of research is going on, have a look at:
Genome Biology 2005, 6:207
http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk/archive...rlong_2005.pdf

I have included various quotes and references to provide a timeline of sorts, but ultimately we simply haven't had time to do the sort of work necessary to provide even a skeleton tree of common descent.

While there have been 300 species (out of over 2 million species (there are over 15,000 genera of fungi, if you want to take a step up)) whose genomes have been "fully sequenced" there appear to be only around 9 "finished" sequences of animals.
"Back in the 1980s, I had the experience of trying to track down the cystic fibrosis gene. It took us about 10 years of very hard work to finally succeed at that endeavor. And there were probably 100 investigators involved and millions of dollars were spent on this enterprise. "

"Like Francis, I spent a decade looking for one gene. That gene cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually find and sequence, and it was a combined effort of NIH funding and work funded by Merck."
PRESS BRIEFING [] ON THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST SURVEY
OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME, June 26, 2000
http://www.ostp.gov/html/00628_3.html

The first draft of the map of the gene containing parts of the human genome was finished in 2000, the final version, 99% of the genes at a 99.99% accuracy was finished in 2003.
press release
International Consortium Completes Human Genome Project,
April 14, 2003
http://www.genome.gov/11006929
as of 2002

The complete genomes of three animals have been sequenced by global research efforts: a nematode worm (Caenorhabditis elegans), an insect (Drosophila melanogaster), and a vertebrate (Homo sapiens).
"The evolutionary position of nematodes"
Jaime E Blair1 , Kazuho Ikeo2 , Takashi Gojobori2 and S Blair Hedges1
1Astrobiology Research Center and Department of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
2Center for Information Biology, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka-ken 411-8540, Japan
BMC Evolutionary Biology 2002, 2:7 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-2-7
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/2/7

Several genomes other than human have been finished, currently more than 300 genomes are fully sequenced
Computational analyses of biological sequences -applications to antibody-based proteomics and gene family characterization
KTH, Biotechnology
2005-12-02
http://www.diva-portal.org/kth/abstract.xsql?dbid=527

These represent over 128 000 genes from nine fully sequenced animal genomes
TreeFam: a curated database of phylogenetic trees of animal gene families.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jan 1;34(Database issue)572-80
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/article...?artid=1347480

So it would appear that while 300 species have been sequenced, the number that are in finished form is barely in double digits.

The DNA sequencing that is used for determing lineages has little or nothing whatsoever to do with genes or genome projects. It has to do with markers (unique DNA sequences that can be between genes, within them, or span them) and reproductive compatibility of the chromosomes. So Robert's argument about genome projects is a totally hollow response to my posts.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

When I originally read this post I was in a rush and skimmed it rather than actually reading it.

Can I think of a reason that the products of DNA are used to skew the pure DNA evidence? Yes. Bias against the evidence of DNA.[sup]1[/sup]Robert seems to be implying that there is some technological barrier to obtaining DNA sequencing[sup]2[/sup] that makes cytochrome c sequencing the most thorough means of molecular analysis possible[sup]3[/sup]. That's just plain BULL! If DNA sequencing showed what evolutionists want it to, they would be using it and it alone. Period.
[]
The DNA sequencing that is used for determing lineages has little or nothing whatsoever to do with genes or genome projects. It has to do with markers (unique DNA sequences that can be between genes, within them, or span them) and reproductive compatibility of the chromosomes.[sup]4[/sup]

1. Exodus 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
2. Nowhere in my posts did I mention or suggest that there are any current techological barriers, I pointed out that until very recently there were very serious financial barriers.
3. I wrote:
   Can you think of a reason or two why the molecular results of DNA, e.g. cytochrome c, have been used rather than the DNA itself?​
   "e.g." = exempli gratia, i.e. free example, i.e. cytochrome c was a single example among many possible.
   
   If by "thorough" you mean able to provide broad comparisons between many species (in some contrast to "precise" or "exact") then cytochrome c combined with a number of other tests was most certainly the most thorough method practically available.
4. One problem with this theory is that finding the "same" section of DNA in two different species is non-trivial. Fortunately the Genome project is signficantly simplifying this. However even so we are unlikely to ever get a full tree with 100% certainty, for at least two reasons.
   
   First, some transitional species have gone extinct, and without the missing link being certain of how the tree is shaped is not possible. Second, related to the first, mutations of mutations. The 'del' part of indels. Fairly large chunks of DNA get deleted. If a chunk of DNA that one is using to provide a link is either deleted or mutated beyond recognition then you are out of luck.

Finally, as rmwilliamsll pointed out in response to your earlier post, the fact is that DNA has long been used to explore evolution.

The first set is not strictly what you were talking about but it is very interesting none-the-less.

The following web pages use information from:
Yunis, J.J. and O. Prakash, 1982. "The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy". Science, 215, 1525-1529.
Fig 2a Human and Chimpanzee Chromosomes 1-4
main page of "Comparison of Human and Chimpanzee Chromosomes"
INDEX TO CHROMOSOME COMPARISON GRAPHICS PAGES

A Phylogeny of Living Hominoids
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/HominoidClade.html

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Prediction 4.5: Molecular evidence - Endogenous retroviruses

again I ask you with respect to the following claims:

There should be a whole lot more similarity in DNA and chromosomes between "nearest relatives".
[]
Instead, molecular biologists find as many genetic differences as they should be finding similarities, and only as many similarities as they should find differences.

On what basis are you making this claim?

By what measure?

Provide a citation that predicts the level of similarity for a particular well understood measurement, providing an explanation for this prediction based upon evolution.

Provide a citation that shows an incompatability lower level of similarity.

I asked for this in mid-May and again at the beginning of June.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Kenneth558 wrote:

There should be a whole lot more similarity in DNA and chromosomes between "nearest relatives".
[]
Instead, molecular biologists find as many genetic differences as they should be finding similarities, and only as many similarities as they should find differences.​

On what basis are you making this claim?

By what measure?

Provide a citation that predicts the level of similarity for a particular well understood measurement, providing an explanation for this prediction based upon evolution.

Provide a citation that shows an incompatability lower level of similarity.

I asked for this in mid-May and again at the beginning of June.

Okay, all things considered I think I will post a response to this claim rather than waiting Kenneth558 to respond.

From the NIH press release
New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level
which appears to be based upon
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
by The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium:

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans​

IOW Kenneth558's claims don't hold water.