Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I wouldn't describe the differences between humans and chimps as particularly vast.
How does common design explain things like phylogenetic patterns for things like retroviral insertions, etc?
Of course, if ERV sequences have a function, then God may have had a functional reason for initially placing them at the same chromosomal location in separately created species. He also may have had a functional reason for designing a system to favor the insertion of certain ERV sequences at certain loci. In other words, maybe retroviruses are a corruption of an original complex system that was designed to facilitate diversification within kinds (per Wood). What was designed as an “altruistic genetic element,” now shows only vestiges of that original benevolent purpose. In that case, the fact ERVs (and other transposons) now have mostly deleterious effects is because the original system has degenerated as a result of the Fall, not because they arose by random processes.
In that regard, it is interesting that, in addition to evincing certain functions, some ERVs (and other transposons) also exhibit an insertion bias. Perhaps this is another remnant of a more finely tuned system. Sverdlov writes:
But although this concept of retrovirus selectivity is currently prevailing, practically all genomic regions were reported to be used as primary integration targets, however, with different preferences. There were identified ‘hot spots’ containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically. A recent study of the de novo retroviral integration demonstrated also preference for scaffold- or matrix-attachment regions (S/MARs) flanked by DNA with high bending potential. The S/MARs are thought to be important functional sequences of the genome that anchor chromatin loops to the nuclear matrix subdividing the genome into functional domains. They often neighbor regulatory elements involved in gene expression and DNA replication.
A cautious generalization from these findings could be that although TEs can integrate into many sites and may prefer non-coding regions, the de novo integration is frequently targeted at the sites in the vicinity of functionally important elements like transcriptions start points or origins of replication. (Sverdlov, 3.)
In addition, LTRs associated with HERVs frequently coincide with genes. This raises the possibility that they are somehow related functionally to those genes.
We found frequent coincidences in positions of HERV-K LTRs and mapped genes on human chromosome 19 where the situation with mapped genes is slightly better. Although it would be premature to interpret this result as the indication of the regulatory interplay between closely located LTRs and genes, still some the the coincidences seem interesting. Most striking is the frequent coincidence of the LTRs with Zn-finger or Zn-finger-like genes scattered all over the chromosome. . . . Among other interesting coincidences, the LTRs were often detected in the vicinity of a number of genes (RRAS, EPOR, JAK3 etc.) implicated at different stages of Jak-Strat signal transduction pathway. The frequent coincidences of the LTRs with the genes of similar or concerted functions might suggest either functional involvement of the LTRs in the expression of the genes or their evolutionary relations. (Sverdlov, 4.)
- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 4 -
Exactly. No one in science thinks design is a thing.
Because descent has been demonstrated, design is just an unjustified assertion.
Can we now provide a DNA-based answer to the fascinating and fundamental question, "What makes us human?" Not at all! Comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes has not yet offered any major insights into the genetic elements that underlie bipedal locomotion, a big brain, linguistic abilities, elaborated abstract thought, or any other unique aspect of the human phenome.
Thoughts on the future of great ape research - Document - Gale Academic OneFile
But those hoping for an immediate answer to the question of human uniqueness will be disappointed. "We cannot see in this why we are phenotypically so different from the chimps," says Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, a co-author on one Nature paper and leader of a study in Science comparing gene expression in chimps and humans (see www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1108296). "Part of the secret is hidden in there, but we don't understand it yet."
Chimp genome catalogs differences with humans - Document - Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine
White southern ‘good Christian folk,’ used the Bible and misused Darwin’s theory to justify slavery and white privilege. But you already knew this.
Acts 17:26
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I don't believe one can prove either common descent or common design. They are interpretations of the evidence based on our respective presuppositions.
Common descent (e.g. phylogenetics) has practical applications. Where are the equivalent applications for common design in biology?
(The insinuation that they are equivalent positions rapidly disappears when one considers real-world biology and the applications thereof.)
Why do we need to assume that science has a monopoly on all knowledge and therefore, the creation of man must have a scientific explanation?
A practical application of creation over evolution might be that the Ten Commandments are a better standard for human morality than the survival of the fittest.
Adoption of a theistic view re: morality isn't a specific application of "creation" (e.g. common design which is what you claimed previously).
And "survival of the fittest" is not intended as a moral standard.
I'm talking about applications re: the biological sciences. For example, common descent is used in the application of phylogenetics data for the purpose of genomic comparisons and identification and annotation of genes.
There are no equivalent applications in biology for "common design".
I don't think we're on the same wave length. You seem to assume that science should have a monopoly on all human knowledge.
QV please:I don't think we're on the same wave length. You seem to assume that science should have a monopoly on all human knowledge.
Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.
Yes, the evidence.Do you believe that natural selection acting on random mutation (or some other natural mechanism) is responsible for human intelligence, language, morality, mathematical ability, etc. because of the evidence itself or because of your own biases?
They are also a better standard of morality than force equals mass times acceleration or power equals voltage times current... but that doesn't make physics false anymore than evolution.A practical application of creation over evolution might be that the Ten Commandments are a better standard for human morality than the survival of the fittest.
A practical application of creation over evolution might be that the Ten Commandments are a better standard for human morality than the survival of the fittest.
It is unlikely that we will ever know the exact mechanisms but there are theories and models that can account for their evolution taking place over millions of years. Evolution of kinship is one example.Do you believe that natural selection acting on random mutation (or some other natural mechanism) is responsible for human intelligence, language, morality, mathematical ability, etc. because of the evidence itself or because of your own biases?
Science is about evidence not proof. There is evidence for common descent while not much evidence for common design without invoking the supernatural.I don't believe one can prove either common descent or common design. They are interpretations of the evidence based on our respective presuppositions.
False dichotomy. Culture is likely the largest influence on our morality. The OT is mostly about early Hebrew culture.A practical application of creation over evolution might be that the Ten Commandments are a better standard for human morality than the survival of the fittest.
Has it been actually demonstrated that natural selection acting on random mutation, or some other natural mechanism, was responsible for the vast differences between chimps and humans?
Just saying "evolution did it" doesn't actually explain how it happened.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?