Evolution

[HydrogenBond]

I would like to translate one set of important symbolism connected to the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Rather than look at these as literal trees, one needs to look at these symbolically. It is not cooincidence that neurons look like little trees, with its synaptic leaves. The dendrite branches are analogous to tree branches and the axon branches are analogous to the roots that lie below the ground. The cerebral matter packs these little trees like the trees in a neural forest.

 

If one scales this up further, the human mind also organizes logic like a tree. Someone making a family tree starts with the first generation as the trunk and then branches from there. The final branches are typically the final generations, which are the living members, who are living leaves. If one was writing a book about the Trojan War, the trunk is the premise. The chapters begin to branch from there, with the final conclusions trying to deduce, the fruits that appear from this particular logic tree. The tree of knowledge of good and evil should starts with a trunk, like the ten commandments, and then using that basic schema begins to branch until all the human behavior that is knownm is including in the tree.

 

The tree of knowledge only produces one type of fruit, whereas the tree of life produces twelve types of fruit. The one type of fruit, is the one size fits all mentality, behind the logical systems of knowledge of good and evil. From a philosophical point of view, one can always come up with a unique scenario, where the law may not apply. Killing is evil, but there are unique circumstances, that one can come up with, like a mother protecting a child, which should be excluded from the law. But the one size fits all mentality, or one fruit, does not offer such flexibility. It writes, one law,or uses one fruit, to prevent opening a can a worms.

 

The tree of life is different, in the sense, it does not use a one size fits all approach, but is able to accommodate a wider range of variations. We sort of do that to some extent, such as legal age, where the laws change. A child can not drive a motor vehicle, but at 16 they can. It is not one size where nobody can drive an auto or anyone can drive an auto. The tree of life is way beyond the standards of modern laws of good and evil. But at one time, this level of flexibility was instinctive to the initial humans. It was a time to explore, before this was good and that was evil. It was all neutral and merely subject to the instinctive attraction toward.

 

When Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she passed the apple to Adam and he ate. After that death came into the world. What had been more flexible, became one size fits all. Because one set of laws can't work in all cases, and human will try to force each other; death.

 

If you look in the jails of any country, the majority of inmates are male. The reason this is so, is that females can better handle one size fits all. Males tend to push the envelop changing the standards du jour. The bible was not insulting women, but merely state a natural fact of life. Female instinct needs security to raise children, such that a predicable social environment make her job much easier. Women can exist peacefully with any reasonable tree of knowledge of good and evil. But males are not cut out for one size fits all. Most of the atrocities of history is due to trying to force confomity to a size that fits one group, but doesn't another. The females can adapt easier, but the men wage war and kill each other.

 

The bible had already anticipated the logical consequence of the one size fits all mentality of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is not God allowing all these atrocities, but men-women setting up systems where the atrocities will become a fact of life, due to the male nature.

 

When Jesus came along, he preach love your enemy. This sort of meant don't use a one size fits all mentality to judge. Stand back and realize your enemy may have a slightly different size that fits them better. In the end, most people wanted one size fits all, with all the baggage it carries. It led to another 2000 years with at least a hundred million deaths. The Mulsim extremist see a one size fits all for the world, whereas the tree of life approach tries to accomodate the many possible sizes. This is a lot more peaceful since it validates each, without violating another.

[Freddy]

[sigh] no, I can't. I withdraw the comment under fire. I believe I heard the Trojan War described in that way on a multi-episode documentary some years ago. But given the evidence mentioned above and the "sharks smelling blood" reaction to my statement, I will gracefully withdraw from the water. :shrug:

You could be correct about the Trojan War being a real event. There is archaeological evidence that the city of Troy existed at seven or more times. The city was destroyed at the seventh level sometime about the time when the Trojan War is believed to have taken place. How, exactly when, and by whom is still being researched through excavation. Perhaps someday some evidence will surface that will prove the Trojan War was a real event. I think many, myself included, want to believe that the basic event the Iliad refers to actually happened.

[CraigD]

I’d like to address a few of several of what appear to me significant common misconceptions that have appeared in this thread.

The idea of the mind, able to manipulate the DNA, can be demonstrated. If one thinks about certain foods, one can make themself hungry. The hunger chemicals can be traced back to specific genes on the DNA. The thought command line causes these genes to become more active, so the needed proteins can be manufactured. If I do this often, so I am always hungry, the DNA might get more permanently alterred. Natural instincts tries to manipulate this DNA cyclically, but we can keep these genes on. This may not be good for health but is humanly possible.

 

To assume the brain can manipulate gamete cells, although hard to prove, is not out of the realm of theoretical possibility. It is only beyond the current theory and our ability to investigate this possiblity.

This appears to me to be speculation concerning the idea of “genetic memory” – neurologically processed information being “recorded” in some fashion into an organism’s (human, in this case) genome. This is a popular speculation, found in countless science fictions. However, to the best of my knowledge and acquaintance with the literature, it’s speculation only – no scientifically plausible mechanism has been proposed, organ, organelle, or chemical complex discovered, or empirical genetic evidence discovered that such a mechanism exists in any plant or animal, especially not humans.

 

Many people, I think, are confuse by a long history of careful and well-controlled scientific research suggesting the possibility of genetic memory into concluding that the possibility is established scientific fact. A centerpiece of this history is research in the 1950s and 60s by Robert Thompson and James V. McConnell involving flat worms (planaria). Thompson and McConnell found that the time required to train planaria to a specific behavior was reduced by feeding them the cut-up remains of planaria that had been trained to the same behavior. Similar results were found by others in more complex animals, such as mice. However, additional research conclusively showed the effect was a coincidence due to non-genetic chemical changes in the food animals. While an interesting and consequential result in itself, the almost entirely discredited the hypothesis that experience memory could be coded into DNA.

 

This paper by Robert Kentridge summarizes my, and, I think, the mainstream consensus view, nicely.

 

As always, any evidence contrary is welcome. One must always be careful, however, not to confuse once promising but later discredited speculation with credible scientific evidence.

 

In short, the idea expressed in this quote

The thought command line causes these genes to become more active, so the needed proteins can be manufactured. If I do this often, so I am always hungry, the DNA might get more permanently alterred.

is unsupported by scientific evidence and theory, and moreover, contradicted by it.

One only has to look at the placebo affect, various psycho-somatic illnesses, and those rare cases of healing that science can not yet explain.

 

One should look very carefully at the placebo effect and these other “mind over body” effects. Like the aforementioned “genetic memories”, the common perception of the scientific consensus tends to significantly disagree with the actual data. The literature is too large for me to summarize in this post, but essentially concludes that theses effects are much less significant, possibly to the point of non-existence, than previously and commonly thought. They appear to be more an artifact of systemic failure in experimental control than objectively real effects – in short, to be explainable by ordinary processes that are difficult to include in scientific studies, rather than a class of extraordinary processes.

The human brain is above the DNA, and can exceed the expected limits of the genetics. The 98lb genetic weakling, from many generations of the same genetics, can go to the gym and eventually look like they came from genes based on 220 lb muscle. Animals can't do that, unless humans use their minds and interceed for them.

Certainly appearance, health, and ability are influenced both by genetics and behavior. However, there are many examples of this in wild, non-human animals.

 

An obvious example is found among animals with strong social hierarchies, such as wolves. Two littermates – genetically nearly identical twins – assume different roles within their pack, the dominant one having better diet, more exercise, less stress, resulting in better appearance, health, and measurably greater size and strength.

 

IMHO, we have a tendency to prematurely conclude that human behaviors are unprecedented in other animals, leading to a great deal of confusion in understanding both human and non-human animal behavior. Though care must be taken to avoid anthropomorphizing, sometimes an animal behavior that appears analogous to a human one actually is – and vice-versa.

 

Although humans certainly do exhibit many behavior not found in other animals, we must be careful to avoid unreasoning acceptance of anthropocentrism.

[HydrogenBond]

This appears to me to be speculation concerning the idea of “genetic memory” – neurologically processed information being “recorded” in some fashion into an organism’s (human, in this case) genome. This is a popular speculation, found in countless science fictions. However, to the best of my knowledge and acquaintance with the literature, it’s speculation only – no scientifically plausible mechanism has been proposed, organ, organelle, or chemical complex discovered, or empirical genetic evidence discovered that such a mechanism exists in any plant or animal, especially not humans.

 

If one even had a kitten, they can take it from the mother at 6 weeks or sooner, such that very little learned knowledge could be transferred. One can even raise it without the influence of other cats. One can even include other animals for alternate data input, but it still ends up an adult cat will all the capabilities of the cat species. Since there is no cat input data in this scenario, one could conclude the programming was already there.

 

Kittens will often use their imagination to practice their skills. The easiest way to describe this is an internal projection into an imaginary scenario so they can act out in reality to develop their motor skills. In this case, not only is there feline pregramming, but there also appear to be teaching programs, that allow the kitten to practice being a cat. Don't take my word for it, get a kitten to prove these observations to yourself.

 

The scientific opinion, of no connection between neural programming and genestics is due to the philisophy of science. I can agree that noone has been able to show a scientific connection between the DNA and neural behavioral structures. But at the same time, the kitten observation shows that this is possible. In a debate between what is possible and what is proveable, science defaults to what is proveable. This philosophy can lead to misunderstanding, if what is real can not besupported with the very vigorous standards of science.

 

An analogy is discovering an unique space phenomena. Nobody will question that the phenomena exists, due to the data. But there could be a problem if the explanation has to drift away from existing thinking. The new data and explanation could cause a problem for the status quo. It may be deemed more conveniet to throw out that data. But people who saw it, contine to speculate hoping to fit the square peg in the round hole so science won't get defensive. But if that can't be done, it is easier to call it sci-fi than consider the possibility, the existing science is lacking. This could make it a poor judge of reality if protocol gets too important.

[CraigD]

If one even had a kitten, they can take it from the mother at 6 weeks or sooner, such that very little learned knowledge could be transferred. One can even raise it without the influence of other cats. One can even include other animals for alternate data input, but it still ends up an adult cat will all the capabilities of the cat species.

Please back up this claim with a reference to a well controlled experiment. Although it is common “folk wisdom” that many complex behavior in animals such as house cats are “completely instinctive”, folk wisdom does not constitute scientific support, and often completely contradicts it.

 

My anecdotal experience is that the claim is false. I’ve had about a dozen kittens (I have 3 now). Some were “barn cats” – nursed and trained by a mom cat who regularly hunted small furry barnyard critters. Others were orphaned before their eyes had opened, requiring weeks of bottle nursing and other, less savory mother cat duties (suffice it to say that very young kittens can’t even effective move their bowels without external stimulation). Cats not trained to hunt, while instinctively curious about live mice and rats, will not effectively hunt them. Released in a barn or woods, they can’t feed themselves.

 

I’ve even had a cat who was very poorly human fostered, who wasn’t good at grooming himself. Fortunately, my other cats groomed him – had they not, he would have been even more unkempt and dirty than he usually was.

The scientific opinion, of no connection between neural programming and genestics is due to the philisophy of science. I can agree that noone has been able to show a scientific connection between the DNA and neural behavioral structures. But at the same time, the kitten observation shows that this is possible. In a debate between what is possible and what is proveable, science defaults to what is proveable. This philosophy can lead to misunderstanding, if what is real can not besupported with the very vigorous standards of science.

While it’s true that there are many domains of phenomena that are poorly understood by science, the fundamental chemical and anatomical mechanisms of molecular biology and neurology, though very complex, are fairly well understood, including those involved in the formation of memories and learning. Despite early observations suggesting otherwise, such as the planeria experiments I mention in post #54, none of the early proposed mechanism for “genetic memories” have proven possible in light of later basic scientific understanding, while explanation of the behavior in question other than genetic memories have.

 

This is not to say that no “behavior” is determined purely by the expression of genes. For example, the coordinated, rhythmic motion of flagellum in numerous small organism and organelles in larger ones is known to be of an entirely mechanical nature involving cellular structures for which, in many organisms, the genes and manner of gene expression are known. Complex cognitive behaviors, however, appear to be the result of neurochemical change – learning – not simple gene expression.

[cotner]

Well, what you quote above is what I also read.

So it is obvious that 'Evolution' is more credible than the bible version.

Ha ha.

 

Also, the idea that Yahweh created man to his own image can be considered to be falsified.

The French scientist have researched the idea of 'Immaculate Conception' and find that only females can reproduce themselves (2 amphibious creatures)without a male and they only reproduce to their own image.

 

Males cannot do that.

 

I asm quoting this from memory that I read this article but cannot recall the source of this news item.

 

NS

 

 

The French scientist have researched the idea of 'Immaculate Conception' and find that only females can reproduce themselves (2 amphibious creatures)without a male and they only reproduce to their own image.

 

Apropos Immaculate Conception and a French researcher, I am wondering whether you get the allusion correctly.

 

Immaculate Conception means Unblemished Conception, referring to the conception of the Virgin Mary in the womb of her mother, without any stain of original sin by a special privilege of God, owing to her election or choice by God to be the earthly mother of Jesus Christ who is the Son of God in human flesh -- pardon the long sentence but I think still readable.

 

Of course all that is a matter of Catholic belief.

 

What you should be alluding to is not Immaculate Conception but the Incarnation of the Son of God in Mary by the Holy Spirit, that is, without the contribution of a human male as the father (no sexual congress), supplying the sperm; that's called the Mystery of the Incarnation, distinct from the Mystery of the Immaculate Conception.

 

In Immaculate Conception, the baby girl conceived is Mary, by normal human reproduction (yes sexual congress) between the parents of Mary, but without any stain of original sin.

 

In the Incarnation, the baby boy conceived is Jesus Christ, but the agent of conception is the Holy Spirit -- no human father involved here -- the egg was supplied by Mary, the role of a human father was replaced by the Holy Spirit, and the person of Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son.

 

 

But, as I said, this is all dogmatic belief of the Catholic Church and also the Orthodox churches.

 

 

Correct me though, better knowledgeable people here.

 

 

Laugh.

 

 

cotner

[cotner]

Please forgive me, but I would like to bring back this thread to active pursuit, because it is enlightening to every person interested to know exactly what the controversy between the camp of creation and the camp of evolution is all about.

 

In the OP I was attracted to the word 'chance' used by the author.

 

 

Evolution

 

I thought this thread is the proper place to post this because of its controversy with the bibles creation theory.

Are people a unique specie as the bible portrays us or did we evolve from the apes?

 

The answer is that we evolved from the apes. More specifically, from the chimpanzees.

But how did it all start?

Well my solution to this problem is that it occurred as a 'chance' event.

 

It all started when a chimpanzee was cornered in a situation by a predator that had no way out. But by a 'chance' occurrence, there laid a fallen tree branch nearby. So the chimpanzee grabbed the tree branch and used that as a defensive tool by pointing it toward the predator as a weapon.

Needless to say, the predator did not relish the idea of having a mouthful of branches shoved in its face, so it left the scene.

 

The chimpanzee than returned to its tribe and conveyed by motions and oral sounds what he/she had accomplished.

So from that point on, tree branches became a valuable tool since they could have had their twigs removed and the tips gnawed to a point as a spear.

This involved only 'one' chimpanzee tribe in Africa.

 

So from this point on over long periods of time, this crude spear progressed to the use of metals and other further improvements.

 

NS

 

What I like to inquire of people here better informed than yours truly is whether chance is to be taken as some kind of agent in evolution, as in creation clearly the word itself indicates an agent of creation.

 

Please do not laugh at me, but I would like to bring up this picture: suppose a careless child just for fun... or better what about the discovery of roast pig by Charles Lamb (pun not intended) where a careless child playing with fire burned down the family cottage including their livestock of piglets, and thereby the wonderful cuisine of roast pig.

 

Is chance in evolution to be understood as in the manner of that careless child playing with fire, which fire once started burned down the cottage together with their litter of piglets, hence a new menu for the table of luscious roast piglets?

 

So, there was some kind of an agent being careless which by accident, i.e., chance, led to life forms in population number developing until mankind appeared as a distinct population?

 

 

Laugh.

 

 

 

cotner

[Turtle]

Please forgive me, but I would like to bring back this thread to active pursuit, because it is enlightening to every person interested to know exactly what the controversy between the camp of creation and the camp of evolution is all about.

 

It's about religion vs. science; that's it. See >> http://hypography.com/forums/history-forum/13372-judgment-day-intelligent-design-trial.html

 

In the OP I was attracted to the word 'chance' used by the author.

...

So, there was some kind of an agent being careless which by accident, i.e., chance, led to life forms in population number developing until mankind appeared as a distinct population?

 

Laugh.

 

cotner

 

See >> Catastrophism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Comet/asteroid impacts are now serious contenders for your 'chance agents'.

[Mike C]

Cotner

 

The start of life on our planet may be a common occurence on others as well.

 

Current science in research on the 'stem cells' that can reproduce into other forms may be a common occurence in the universe on all planets with hospitable environments.

 

What I mean here is that IF the stem cells can survive in a dorment state at the space temperature of 3K, than life exists on many planets.

The stem cells can survive at the liquid nitrogen temperature of 70K or a solid temperature of 60K, then it could even survive at 3K(?).

 

I would like to see an experiment of this conducted now that we have been in space for some time.

Numereous experiments have been done in space and I wonder if this type of experiment may have already been done but without a public announcement?

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Turtle

 

Did you see the recent program on Public TV about the 'court trial' of a school district that permitted the teaching of Intelligent Design?

The ID promoters LOST the case and the school board that passed this for their district were all voted OUT of office.

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

What I mean here is that IF the stem cells can survive in a dorment state at the space temperature of 3K, than life exists on many planets.

The stem cells can survive at the liquid nitrogen temperature of 70K or a solid temperature of 60K, then it could even survive at 3K(?).

I think Mike is confused in his used of the term “stem cell”. Cells of these type are very undifferentiated cells found in all multi-cellular organism. They have the ability to become cells of many types in the organism. They do NOT have the ability to become other species, or survive conditions that an organism’s other cells can not, such as extreme cold, and are typically fragile, unable to survive outside of the protective “skin” common to many multi-cellular organisms.

 

This is not to criticise the idea of panspermia, just to point out that it has little connection to the idea of stem cells. Due to their size and fragility, it’s unlikely that the intact cells of complex single or multi-cellular organisms can survive extended periods in space. For panspermia to work, the space-born biological material must be simple and very sturdy.

[Mike C]

I think Mike is confused in his used of the term “stem cell”. Cells of these type are very undifferentiated cells found in all multi-cellular organism. They have the ability to become cells of many types in the organism. They do NOT have the ability to become other species, or survive conditions that an organism’s other cells can not, such as extreme cold, and are typically fragile, unable to survive outside of the protective “skin” common to many multi-cellular organisms.

 

This is not to criticise the idea of panspermia, just to point out that it has little connection to the idea of stem cells. Due to their size and fragility, it’s unlikely that the intact cells of complex single or multi-cellular organisms can survive extended periods in space. For panspermia to work, the space-born biological material must be simple and very sturdy.

 

Craig

 

How about the artificial inseminations performed today for some woman that want to conceive?

Don't they use cells and sperms that have been preserved in 'liquid' nitrogen that is at a temperature of about 65K?

 

You know that when something is frozen in liquid nitrogen, it becomes very brittle.

But when brought back slowly, it can survive?

 

Just my opinion.

 

Mike C

[HydrogenBond]

One of the flaws of evolutionary theory is selective advantage. The reason this is so, is that selective advantage does not have to follow genetic evolution. For example, the animals on earth today are at the pinnacle of genetic evolution, as a distribution, compared to the time of the dinosaurs. But if we were to combine a random animal distribution from both times, which would have the selective advantage; "In this corner we have the lion, the current king of the beasts. In the other corner we have T-rex the former king, with his much inferior genetics". I would bet the farm on the selective advantage going to T-rex and his inferior genetics.

 

The selective advantage theory only works within a very narrow range of genetic differences. If we broaden the genetic spectrum it is inconclusive. Evolution could have been the story of selective advantage killing off genetics that evolved too fast, causing the pace to remain slow. Darwin did not exactly know about DNA. Science, mistakenly assumed that evolution meant selective advantages=genetics.

 

I often wondered why humans evolved so fast, once culture was set up. This had to do was law, which was given its strongest push by religion. It protected genetics from the slow boat of primal selective advantage. Darwin sort of tries to go backwards to the time, when T-rex could beat the lion. Science supported this with an carte blanche genetics assumption.

 

Even if we use a narrow genetic band-width, so that selective advantage is much closer to genetics, the environment dictates selective advantage. For example, the deer-buck has an advantage if he has a large 10 point rack. Put him in the thicket, this can cause a problem. What should be a genetic and selective advantage in the open field, is a genetic advancement that will offer him a selective disadvantage in the thicket. He has two options. He can stay in the thicket, get stuck and become food. Or he can migrate to where the land is more open so his genetics can gain an advantage.

 

Animal migration may have been a genetic way to alter the environment so selective advantage could be achieved for the improved genetics. A good example is the bully in the playground and the quiet smart kid. In the playground, the bully will have the selective advantage. The quiet kid may need to migrate to the library to find where he is strong. Civilization did not begin until humans migrated to the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates. That was their library away from the bullies, so they could find advantage for their genetics. If they didn't find that, but stayed in the playground, we could still be cavemen writing these articles on the walls of caves. The question is was this just random walking or a type of homing mechanism?

[Pyrotex]

One of the flaws of evolutionary theory is selective advantage. The reason this is so, is that selective advantage does not have to follow genetic evolution. For example, the animals on earth today are at the pinnacle of genetic evolution, as a distribution, compared to the time of the dinosaurs. ...

Woops.

 

Your logic is okay, but one of your initial assumptions is wrong. Evolution is not "directed". There is no "pinnacle", no "up" direction, no "better" direction, no "more sophisticated" dimension. Evolution simply tends to whatever change which results in that species surviving; surviving the changes in its environment, in its predators, in its pray or food source, in its competition from other species in the same niche.

 

Whales evolved from ocean swimming life that succeeded in evolving for dry land, and then later evolved back into ocean swimming mammals. There is no external "push" for evolution to go in a specific or preferential direction.

 

Selective advantage is not seen as a "flaw" of evolution.

 

It would make just as much sense to say that the internal combustion engine or the transmission is a "flaw" of the automobile.

[HydrogenBond]

I understand what you are saying. Evolution is connected to the process of change without respect to the hows. But selective advantage is a theory that offers a how, which is usually equated with genetics. I was trying to show that selective advantage does not have to equate to genetics. This Darwinian assumption is not entirely correct but it is something Darwin could not have seen, since he did not have genetics to compare T-rex to the lion. The theory of selective advantage is still correct, if not equated to genetics.

 

Selective advantage and environment was brought up because the environment helps to define who will have a selective advantage. Einstein in Marine Boot camp would not have a selective advantage. But stick him in a conference room with physicists students and he is strong.

 

Humans are unique in nature in that we can control the environment. Those controlling the environment do so for their own selective advantage. The question is how would the cultural environment have to be, such that genetics and selective advantage go hand and hand?

 

One way to approach this is look at animal evolution. T-rex could do will in modern times if the environment was set up for him. But to assure modern genetics has the selective advantage we can not cater to T-rex. Relative to human evolution, since culture began, we would need to make sure the environment is set up to optimize its latest advancements.

 

The brute was around since the beginning of culture. He was the T-rex of his day. If we let the brute rule he will alter the environment so that his 5000 years old cultural-human genetic rules. The merchant was around at least 3000-4000 years. Those newer cultural genetics would also alter the environment so their 3000 year old genetics has the advantage. We are heading in the right direction, but maybe not quite far enough.

 

Reason has been around about 2300 years with Greece then Rome. That is more genetically advanced, but it got buried due to an environmental change during the dark ages. Reason appeared again at the age of enlightenment. The question is, is the modern cultural environment set up to assure the most rational people have the most selective advantage so genetics= selective advantage? The answer is no. We are more optimized at 3000-4000 years ago. Reason is important but plays a support role to genetics that was around, before there was any ability to reason.

 

One can do the same genetic analysis on religion. The oldest forms of religion were nature worship, where animals and trees ruled. Then there was idol worship, sort of an art affect created by an artist. Next, there came polytheism and the more humanoid gods as well some old school connection to nature, via half human-half animal. Then there was monotheism where the endless variety became integrated into one. This split once via the son of God, and again via the Holy Spirt.

 

For the most part, the modern cultural religious environment is set somewhere between monotheism and the first split. This is where the selective advantage lies with respect to genetics and religion. The second split or holy spirit plays a support role.

 

The question is since reason and the Holy spirit are the two most advanced genetics within the left and right hemispheres, respectively, how would culture need to change so these genetics have selective advantage?

[Turtle]

Evolution

 

I thought this thread is the proper place to post this because of its controversy with the bibles creation theory.

Are people a unique specie as the bible portrays us or did we evolve from the apes?

 

The answer is that we evolved from the apes. More specifically, from the chimpanzees.

NS

 

Turtle

 

Did you see the recent program on Public TV about the 'court trial' of a school district that permitted the teaching of Intelligent Design?

The ID promoters LOST the case and the school board that passed this for their district were all voted OUT of office.

 

Mike C

 

'Sup Mike. Back in post #59 I gave a link to a thread on the show you reference. I saw it, and if you saw it as well you may have missed the point that humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, rather they & we have an older common ancestor.

 

The scientific information given in testimony in said court case is a primer in evolutionary theory that merits hearing/reading until it is understood. The religious claims to have any say of merit on the hows, wheres, and what-have-yous of humans' appearance on our little rock is not worth a dribble of spit, in my humble opinion. :phones:

[CraigD]

How about the artificial inseminations performed today for some woman that want to conceive?

Don't they use cells and sperms that have been preserved in 'liquid' nitrogen that is at a temperature of about 65K?

Yes, they do.

 

There’s much more to techniques of “cryopreservation” than simply cold temperatures – mostly, that “much more” consists of avoiding damaging the cells due to such things as water freezing in and around them, and freezing them quickly enough that they don’t have time to die and decay. This section of the previously linked-to article has a brief overview of what sorts of cells can practically be cryopreserved with existing techniques, and how.

 

Keeping to my original point, sperm cells, and egg cells – either ova, or their precursors, oocytes - aren’t stem cells, either. You could reasonably argue that oocytes and ova are “more stem-y” than stem cells, which are themselves subdivided into different classes, so should be considered a sort of “super stem cell”, but this isn’t how the terms are normally used.

 

It’s important, when using words with well-established conventional technical meanings, to follow the convention, or acknowledge it and explain how and why you’re using them unconventionally.

 

In summary, there’s not much evidence or strong argument to suggest much similarity between the complicated, fragile mechanisms of complex multi-celled organisms that have stem cells (such as us), and the sort of “life” likely to be involved in panspermia. If panspermia is a mechanism by which life appeared on Earth and other planets and celestial bodies – a reasonable, but as yet unproven hypothesis – the molecules involved are likely to be smaller, simpler, and tougher than the cells so marvelously matched to the perpetuation of multi-cellular life.