God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2013, 07:49 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Hey, PJ.

Didn't see this one before.

Quote:The percentage difference between human genes and ape genes still
translates to millions of genetic differences. A car has wheels, some
boats have wheels, and many airplanes have wheels--but they didn't
evolve one from another. Each was a product of intelligent design. Some
animals may have hairy coats and opposing thumbs but they didn't evolve
from one another--nor from lemurs--nor from one-celled animals.

You may have heard the idiom before "don't re-invent the wheel." The wheel is a technology. Wheels are applications of that technology. All wheels, as it were, have a common ancestor.

As I mentioned to EKills, those wheels, the products, the specific applications, variation if you will, do evolve over time; not of their own volition, as EKills pointed out, but because the governing replicator does.

Intelligent design in terms of human design is quite different than divine design because humans exist WITHIN the system. We design in context. Monster truck tire design evolved because of the evolution of the monster truck rally, not in a vacuum. We don't design things out of the blue. Our context acts as a selection pressure.

As for opposing thumbs... In previous times, geneticists believed, as they began to sequence genomes, that there were gene loci along the genome, and then long stretches that didn't seem to do anything. They called that junk DNA. Naturally, nature wastes nothing, so the idea was ludicrous. What they discovered is that there are actually three levels of genes. The first level is the gene we know: make an eye, make a heart, make proteins. The second level tells the first level how many hours to turn on for in development. The third level tells the second level to be on or off. For example, birds have the genes for teeth, but the third level has shut them off. But we can go in, turn it back on and poof, birds have teeth. Same with us. We have the gene for tails. It's just off. The reason the second level is important is because of early development. Turns out that the genes, like say, for tetrapodism (four limbed organisms), is the EXACT SAME GENE in ALL tetrapods. Meaning it's the exact same in humans, chimps, gorillas, dogs, cats, birds, lizards, whales, amphibians, crocodiles, marsupials, anything with four legs. The difference is how long they are on for in development. X number of hours, you get a human arm. Y number of hours, you get a bat wing. Z number of hours, you get a dolphin fin. So all tetrapods have a common ancestor.

As for fur, hair is one of the defining characteristics of mammals. Like mammary glands. All mammals have hair. All of them. Again, demonstrating that all mammals have a common ancestor. We aren't just related to chimps, we're related to mice, giraffes, manatees, cows, whales, horses, cats, dogs, musk ox, zebra, wildebeest...

Now, I understand that your world view may believe that each species was made on it's own, which is fine as far as I'm concerned, but if we're talking about evolutionary theory, then no way.

As far as technology evolving from technology, you should check out Marshall McLuhan's notion of figure/ground. If figure/ground doesn't make sense to you, don't worry, nobody understands McLuhan.





ON EDIT: Yeah, haven't been following this thread, but it seems to have drifted pretty far from the heavy rock thing lol.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
21-02-2013, 07:54 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(21-02-2013 07:49 PM)Ghost Wrote:  They called that junk DNA. Naturally, nature wastes nothing, so the idea was ludicrous.

Not ludicrous. There really is DNA that doesn't do anything. There are sections that are defunct genes, copies of genes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-02-2013, 08:04 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(21-02-2013 07:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-02-2013 07:49 PM)Ghost Wrote:  They called that junk DNA. Naturally, nature wastes nothing, so the idea was ludicrous.

Not ludicrous. There really is DNA that doesn't do anything. There are sections that are defunct genes, copies of genes.

Yup. There are even ancient bits of virus DNA in your DNA, remnants of ancient retroviruses. They're called Endogenous Retroviruses, and they map exactly with comparative anatomy, genetics, phylogenetics, and paleontology when it comes to constructing the tree of life.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
21-02-2013, 10:05 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Sections of the genome with explained purpose have nothing to do with the notion of junk DNA.

Be certain we're in disagreement before you disagree with me. Saves us both some time.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 10:15 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 10:21 PM by Chas.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(21-02-2013 10:05 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Sections of the genome with explained purpose have nothing to do with the notion of junk DNA.

Be certain we're in disagreement before you disagree with me. Saves us both some time.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Getting your facts straight would save us time.

"Junk DNA" is the term for non-coding DNA. There's plenty of it.
Yes, DNA encoding is multi-level and complex, but there are sections of non-functional DNA.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 11:08 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Junk DNA is an outdated term.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 11:11 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Ghost, clarify for me, just what, exactly, are you arguing?


All I see you do is come into a thread and say "YOU'RE ALL TOTALLY WRONG", then when people respond you do a 180 and say, "Oh yes, I totally agree." Then while people are confused you switch back to "BUT YOU'RE ALL WRONG". What the hell man? Are you just a contrarian or what?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 11:12 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(21-02-2013 11:08 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Junk DNA is an outdated term.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Yes, "junk DNA" is passe, but there are non-functional stretches of DNA.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 11:55 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Chas, there's no but.

Phaedrus.

Am I a contrarian? I'd say, "You"re fucking joking," but based on previous interactions, I don't believe that you are. Think what you will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 08:11 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(21-02-2013 11:55 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Chas, there's no but.
Why, yes there is. There are relics of previously operational genes, insertions of viral DNA, and so on.

These are demonstrably non-functional.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: