What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

Noxot · Dec 25, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
That 'left brain / right brain' thinker stuff is a myth, folk science.

I was trying to use a language or word to explain certain types of processes of the brain that are strange and that are connected to pattern identification and the parts of the brain that dream. when I said right rather than left I was talking about mythological/symbolic thinking rather than rational thinking, which is linked to dreaming. thanks for the video.

there are differences in the right and left hemispheres and in what they do but the video already said that. in part I communicate how I did because of my own phenomenological experiences. I happen to be left handed so my brain might be a little bit different, but I think that thoughts in the brain come from many different areas. I know that it's typical for certain areas of the brain to do certain things but I know that neuroplasticity is a thing and that the brain is very complex. so obviously common knowledge of the masses and general information is going to crucify complex things.

bhsmte · Dec 25, 2017

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat said:
I know some people like to point out how close our species is to chimps and use this as evidence that God doesn't exist but would you really come to this conclusion on your own? If God created The universe, chimps and humans. Why couldn't he have used similar methods when creating chimps as us.

I was watching a video about 15 body parts that we were supposed to lose over the next 500 years due to evolution and it had me starting to have some atheist sayings run through my mind and made me just ponder a bit. I eventually came to the conclusion that if God created humans and chimps then we should expect similarity between two created things God made right?

So what do things like the closeness of our dna to chimps, and the fact that we have certain body parts that we don't even need mean to you in regards to your belief in God or lack of belief?

I don't think about it much.

Well evidenced reality is what it is, I don't pretend to ignore or change it.

rjs330 · Dec 25, 2017

Dawnhammer said:
Here is demonstrated experiment how bacteria learned in steps to eat citrate. It evolved.

Bacteria learn new trick

That is not the kind of evolution we are talking about. Of course stuff like that happens. I'm sure many creatures including humans have learned different things. Do you suppose humanity just new exactly what to eat and how to eat all the things we do from the start? Of course not. Particularly when the climate changes we learned to eat and prepare differing foods.

That is not the evolution we are talking about. We are talking about all things evolving from one thing. The "blob" or whate

Speedwell said:
As interpreted by fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant theists.

Sorry as quoted by God himself.

Then God spoke all these words:I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.You must have no other gods before me.Do not make an idol for yourself—no form whatsoever—of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.Do not bow down to them or worship them, because I, the Lord your God, am a passionate God. I punish children for their parents’ sins even to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me.But I am loyal and gracious to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.Do not use the Lord your God’s name as if it were of no significance; the Lord won’t forgive anyone who uses his name that way.Remember the Sabbath day and treat it as holy.Six days you may work and do all your tasks,but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. Do not do any work on it—not you, your sons or daughters, your male or female servants, your animals, or the immigrant who is living with you.Because the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them in six days, but rested on the seventh day. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. - Exodus 20:1-11 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20:1-11 - Common English Bible

Note"and God spake all these words". Not some, not a few, but all of them. You have to do an awful lot of gymnastic interpretive tricks to avoid this.

Again you ignore church history where the apostles and early church fathers believed. This is not a fundamentalist Protestant idea. It existed long before Protestants ever arrived on the scene.

Speedwell · Dec 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
That is not the kind of evolution we are talking about. Of course stuff like that happens. I'm sure many creatures including humans have learned different things. Do you suppose humanity just new exactly what to eat and how to eat all the things we do from the start? Of course not. Particularly when the climate changes we learned to eat and prepare differing foods.

That is not the evolution we are talking about. We are talking about all things evolving from one thing. The "blob" or whate

Sorry as quoted by God himself.

Then God spoke all these words:I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.You must have no other gods before me.Do not make an idol for yourself—no form whatsoever—of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.Do not bow down to them or worship them, because I, the Lord your God, am a passionate God. I punish children for their parents’ sins even to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me.But I am loyal and gracious to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.Do not use the Lord your God’s name as if it were of no significance; the Lord won’t forgive anyone who uses his name that way.Remember the Sabbath day and treat it as holy.Six days you may work and do all your tasks,but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. Do not do any work on it—not you, your sons or daughters, your male or female servants, your animals, or the immigrant who is living with you.Because the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them in six days, but rested on the seventh day. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. - Exodus 20:1-11 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20:1-11 - Common English Bible

Note"and God spake all these words". Not some, not a few, but all of them. You have to do an awful lot of gymnastic interpretive tricks to avoid this.

No cigar unless you can explain the change of voicing.

Again you ignore church history where the apostles and early church fathers believed. This is not a fundamentalist Protestant idea. It existed long before Protestants ever arrived on the scene.

Wrong. The most you can say is that the Apostles and early church Fathers believed the stories to be historical (as many non-creationist Christians do now). There is no hint of Protestant fundamentalism in their writings, your blatant revisionism notwithstanding.

Dawnhammer · Dec 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
That is not the kind of evolution we are talking about.

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

I tried this on other thread but never got an answer....

If humans settled a planet with 1.3 times earth’s gravity do you agree that future generations would likely be shorter, more muscular and have other characteristics like denser bones ?

Noxot · Dec 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Actually creation belief is not Protestant minority. It actually comes from the 1st century believers and the apostles. The belief in evolution from a common ancestor is the "new" belief.

You keep saying the same mantra. But that doesn't make it true. The apostles believed in creation as taught in Genesis as did many of the church fathers as I have point d out before. It's time you put that old argument and disdain aside. It's NOT a new belief.

evolution was not yet discovered. do you consult a plumber if you need information about the heart or do you consult a cardiothoracic surgeon? sure the plumber can tell you some things but the surgeon guy/gal probably knows his own field better than the plumber.

[Staff edit].

chaos theory would imply that both a designer and evolution could be true. God could create by a process that leads to something, no matter what it does in some phases. he could have set a process in motion that has a definite beginning and end but an undetermined middle that is being worked out. so the universe would naturally have intelligence due to that being it's unfurling nature.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 25, 2017

Noxot said:
... when I said right rather than left I was talking about mythological/symbolic thinking rather than rational thinking, which is linked to dreaming.

But mythological/symbolic thinking and rational thinking are only related to left and right by the mythical left-brain, right-brain folk science, and you explicitly mentioned left-brain/right-brain thinking twice in your post; I was simply pointing out that you were wrong in that respect.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 25, 2017

pitabread said:
This is again where I point to genetic algorithms as a fascinating example of the emergence of complexity from (relatively) simply, recursive processes. Simply looking at the end product and then being dumbfounded as to how such a thing could possibly come to exist, ignores the process by which such things can emerge via evolutionary processes.

My favorite example is when some researchers were trying to evolve an oscillator and then inadvertently evolved a radio by accident: Radio emerges from the electronic soup

It's a great example of the unintended consequences of the blind search of an evolutionary process.

I like NASA's evolved antenna - looks like someone sat on it:

Noxot · Dec 25, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
But mythological/symbolic thinking and rational thinking are only related to left and right by the mythical left-brain, right-brain folk science, and you explicitly mentioned left-brain/right-brain thinking twice in your post; I was simply pointing out that you were wrong in that respect.

yeah thanks, I forgot how crude of a factual explanation it is even though the use of language works well enough for what i was intending it for if people would get the gist of the idea rather than be concerned about the part that you were, which means that I failed to communicate well enough.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 25, 2017

Noxot said:
yeah thanks, I forgot how crude of a factual explanation it is even though the use of language works well enough for what i was intending it for if people would get the gist of the idea rather than be concerned about the part that you were, which means that I failed to communicate well enough.

The point is that it isn't just a 'crude factual explanation', it's plain wrong - it's not factual at all.

I just thought that was worth pointing out.

OldWiseGuy · Dec 25, 2017

Isn't "nested hierarchy" an arbitrary construct that has been widely accepted by evolutionists?
It seems to be another red herring argument that steers one away from the real debate which is; can an incredibly complex organism 'evolve' from a single celled organism at all?

pitabread · Dec 25, 2017

OldWiseGuy said:
Isn't "nested hierarchy" an arbitrary construct that has been widely accepted by evolutionists?

Nested hierarchies are not arbitrary. They are constructs based on underlying data sets.

Speedwell · Dec 25, 2017

OldWiseGuy said:
Isn't "nested hierarchy" an arbitrary construct that has been widely accepted by evolutionists?

No, it's an hypothesis which has not yet been falsified.

It seems to be another red herring argument that steers one away from the real debate which is; can an incredibly complex organism 'evolve' from a single celled organism at all?

Not really. If the evolution process works as the theory claims, then that would be the expected result. There is a plausible and tested mechanism in random variation and selection. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the field. Common ancestry, then, is a reasonable inference.

OldWiseGuy · Dec 25, 2017

pitabread said:
Nested hierarchies are not arbitrary. They are constructs based on underlying data sets.

But those 'data sets' are also arbitrary aren't they? Isn't it "turtles all the way down"?

pitabread · Dec 25, 2017

OldWiseGuy said:
But those 'data sets' are also arbitrary aren't they? Isn't it "turtles all the way down"?

Typically they're based on genetic data (i.e. RNA or DNA sequences). Unless you want to claim the genomes of individual organisms are 'arbitrary', I'm not sure what your point is...?

USincognito · Dec 25, 2017

Speedwell said:
What I want to know is how Christianity survived for almost two millenia without fundamentalist Protestants to tell us the right way to believe.

USincognito · Dec 26, 2017

rjs330 said:
And you don't need to believe in common ancestry to study or use biology. You can believe in common design and accomplish the same things.

Common design is as hoc, unfalsifiable and doesn't actually explain anything. For instance it would need to explain why:
- humans and chimpanzees share 203,00 endogenous retroviruses
- all haplorhine primates including humans share a broken GULO gene
- whales have a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway
- eutherians and marsupials have VTG pseudogenes

Dawnhammer said:
Microevolution....so you acknowledge that humans who colonized a planet with say 1.3 times earth’s gravity would micro evolve to develop say shorter stature, denser bones and that kind of things during future generations of offsprings ?

"Could", not would. Evolution is not Lamarckian.

SolomonVII · Dec 26, 2017

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat said:
I know some people like to point out how close our species is to chimps and use this as evidence that God doesn't exist but would you really come to this conclusion on your own? If God created The universe, chimps and humans. Why couldn't he have used similar methods when creating chimps as us.

I was watching a video about 15 body parts that we were supposed to lose over the next 500 years due to evolution and it had me starting to have some atheist sayings run through my mind and made me just ponder a bit. I eventually came to the conclusion that if God created humans and chimps then we should expect similarity between two created things God made right?

So what do things like the closeness of our dna to chimps, and the fact that we have certain body parts that we don't even need mean to you in regards to your belief in God or lack of belief?

It means that we share common ancestors with chimpanzees in our relatively recent past.
It is quite important to understand this actually, because it means that many of our mechanisms for perceiving reality developed whilst our ancestors inhabited trees, where the main predators were creatures like snakes. To understand the meaning of snakes etc in our narratives about God, we therefore need to understand what snakes meant to our pre-human ancestors. The sense of danger elicited by snakes therefore becomes understood as being more visceral and existential than rational, because we evolved mechanisms to survive snakes during the time when we shared ancestors with chimpanzees.

Dawnhammer · Dec 26, 2017

USincognito said:
"Could", not would. Evolution is not Lamarckian.

Yeah evolution is not Lamarckian which means it has zero meaning here so why did you bring it up ?

You have any reason why changed living conditions ie heavier gravity wouldn’t start to favour people with genes better suited to it which would mean their ascendancy over less suited body types over time ?

USincognito · Dec 26, 2017

Dawnhammer said:
Yeah evolution is not Lamarckian which means it has zero meaning here so why did you bring it up ?

Because this:
>> humans who colonized a planet with say 1.3 times earth’s gravity would micro evolve to develop say shorter stature, denser bones and that kind of things during future generations of offsprings ? <<
suggests that they would evolve those adaptions because of their environment which is Lamarkcian. It is more proper to say that some humans could develop those characteristics and they would be better adapted to that sort of environment.

Dawnhammer said:
You have any reason why changed living conditions ie heavier gravity wouldn’t start to favour people with genes better suited to it which would mean their ascendancy over less suited body types over time ?

I"m saying the environment would favor those sorts of adaptions. I'm also saying there's no guarantee that humans would develop those adaptions. There's no guarantee that any species will develop the adaptions to a changed environment. That's why so many species have gone extinct.

What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

anarchist personalist

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

anarchist personalist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

anarchist personalist

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Similar threads