ENominiPatri
Regular Member
The only reason we got "smarter" is because we learned how to record information.
Upvote
0
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.
So we're not smarter than when the only tools we had were used to smash open nuts? A nuclear warhead is no more complicated than a flint axe? Face it we're getting smarter. We're also getting greedy and selfish, but smarter.
ok but how do you (evolutionists) explain thought?
The 10% story is a myth.but how do psychologist help not everybody goesd to those people. and psychologist are normally the people that need the help. And how can somebody be a philosopher of mind when they and us as humans dont even know how the human brain operates properly as if we did we would be using 100% of it not 10% of it.
Then we would have things that you wouldnt be able to inagine.
but how do psychologist help not everybody goesd to those people. and psychologist are normally the people that need the help. And how can somebody be a philosopher of mind when they and us as humans dont even know how the human brain operates properly as if we did we would be using 100% of it not 10% of it.
Then we would have things that you wouldnt be able to inagine.
How do you kow if the [d]og has a GOD or not have you ever been in a dogs mind or thoughts? NO so you cannot make such harsh conclusions for somehting you dont know.
and again have you ever been in the thoughts of a brain damaged person? NO. and why are we so different from the dog? we airnt we are both made up from the same things. ATOMS. and for all we know dogs could be way more intelligent than we are, but they canot show it for certain reasons.
Dogs have there own way of communication, they bark, and so how do humans know what they are saying.
And you didnt answer my quesion how do you (evolutionists) explain thought?
it is very difficult for fossils to naturally occur.Its not difficult to create a fossil
Even worse, recent evidence shows that most of this junk is transcribed into RNA. Not only are we carrying this rubbish around, we are wasting precious resources copying it into more rubbish.
Why is no-one talking about the elephant in the room? The fish clearly shows that the junk DNA is not needed, so what possible evolutionary mechanism explains why we have retained it?
1) The very concept of "junk" DNA.
Evidence shows that, with some exceptions noted below, the more complex the organism, the more non-coding DNA it has. Scientist were so convinced that it served no purpose that even now it is referred to as junk DNA, and this conviction was so strong that one guy was allowed to patent the entire lot. Bacteria contain little non coding DNA, their genomes are wall to wall genes. By the time you get to Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) its about 15% junk. For humans it's about 98% junk.
The ToE says that mutations happen at random and are then fixed if they confer selective advantage. The ToE says nothing about organisms hauling about great piles of useless material in their genomes.
Even worse, recent evidence shows that most of this junk is transcribed into RNA. Not only are we carrying this rubbish around, we are wasting precious resources copying it into more rubbish.
Why is it so?
On a related point, the puffer fish has lost most of its non-codong DNA, it is, nevertheless, a fully functioning higher organism. Scientists look at theis bacteria-like chromosome and eagerly discuss how we will earn so much about human genes because of the conservation.
Why is no-one talking about the elephant in the room? The fish clearly shows that the junk DNA is not needed, so what possible evolutionary mechanism explains why we have retained it?
Because it is SOOOOO much easier for evolutionists to call it all "unnecessary junk", than it is to attempt to explain it.
You are about the last poster who should be laughing based upon the posts I remember you making in the News & Current Event forum a few weeks ago.
Oh really?
You quoted Penrose without realising what he was really calculating.Are you still referring to my quotes from Dr. Roger Penrose of Oxford?
Quite a few - in fact you could say a large part of my job is professional reader.I wonder Kerr, have you read a book since then?
Didn't need to - I already was familiar with the usual creationist claptrap.Perhaps looked anything that I said,.... up?
It is not much - the number seems to be in the single digit percentage range.In other words, much of the "junk" is what turns genes on and off.
It is not much - the number seems to be in the single digit percentage range.
That's not the only explanation for junk DNA; it was just the only one that I knew off the top of my head.
Some more explanations are in links from the wikipedia article. That being said, there is still a lot of "junk" DNA that is unaccounted for.
Nature 431, 988-993 (21 October 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature03022; Received 2 June 2004; Accepted 8 September 2004
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice
Marcelo A. Nóbrega2, Yiwen Zhu2, Ingrid Plajzer-Frick, Veena Afzal and Edward M. Rubin
1. DOE Joint Genome Institute Walnut Creek, California 94598, USA, and Genomics Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, California 94720, USA
2. These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence to: Edward M. Rubin Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to E.M.R. (Email: emrubin@lbl.gov).
Top of page
The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined1. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts2, 3, 4 can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.
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?