We're Really Chimps???

Hi Rrhain,The fellow et al. most likely misunderstood some recent science news. That's what I think. I thought it was a hilarious interpretation of the DNA similarities issue. That's interesting. I think I have read something similar...perhaps in Michael Behe's book, which along with a 1990 public high school biology text is a significant source of my total, inadequate genetic knowledge.To be honest, I believe (not expecting ANYBODY to agree) most all animals (say from fish and up) to be based on the human structure (from an Intelligent Design POV--i.e., God designed the human structure first and based most other life forms (particularly the ones humans would be seeing and interacting with) on that basic idea--i.e., one nose, two eyes, fore and hind limbs, etc.)Seems, too, that I've read that similar structures--say a frog foot and a human foot--can be coded for in radically different ways, but that might have been me misunderstanding something. I suppose the 2% difference could be affecting just that. From my point of view (God working from the human image down--as far as designing goes), God altered the code just a bit. It has two potential lessons in my mind...first one is that humans may not be as wonderful as they sometimes think themselves to be. The other one is that God can accomlish a lot by doing only a little." Perhaps God just removed the "super expression" code module and left the chimps everything else.

Hi Juhrahnimo, Oddly enough, I had trouble telling whether you were a creationist or an evolutionist. I thought you were just being a smart-alecky creationist. I no longer think that, though.No, it is NOT obvious that man evolved from chimps. It IS obvious that we have similar body and DNA structures. What these two facts combined prove is that humans and chimps have similiar body and DNA structures. If we were to study the similariities to the n^th degree, apart from all other facts, we could never surmise HOW either chimps or humans came to be.It is just as "obvious" to me that God made chimps and humans similar in many ways but also significantly different in many ways. Very interesting. I have just heard of "junk" DNA. As one who believes in God, I have trouble grasping the idea of "junk" DNA. I could see calling it "not-well-understood" DNA, of course. I think this conclusion that some DNA is accumulated but useless copying errors or something is a result of trying to cram square facts into a round evolution paradigm. So, I would naturally expect that scientists will be continually amazed that DNA does things they didn't think it did, since they think it's all of random origin and I think it is intelligently engineered. You may be interested in my new thread, which just got going called, Message 1.Regards,
--TheLiteralist

Hi Ned, Cooool. I know that evolutionists are seeing this from the common ancestry perspective, but I am seeing it more as a computer programmer using a perfectly good module (perhaps with minor adjustments) for similar purposes in various software codes (various mammal, perhaps various vertebrates, in this case)--it just seems extremely efficient. Sometimes, I wish money and time were no object...I might go for a masters or doctorate degree in some field that really dives into this DNA stuff--just to know it. In my case, though, it causes deep appreciation for the One I consider to be the Engineer. Looking at Hubble telescope pictures has a similar effect on me.I shall, hopefully, get around to perusing those links sometime.I meant for it to be a goof-off topic, but it's turning out quite good.Thanks,
--TL

Hi Jurhrhanimo,Okay...so I can tell from another thread that you believe the Bible. Just so I know, do you believe in evolution or not?Just so you know, I do believe the Bible, and I don't believe evolution.--TL

TheLiteralist writes:

quote:

---

i.e., God designed the human structure first and based most other life forms

---

Then why do humans have such crap structures compared to the other animals? Cephalopoid eyes are better than human eyes. The human retina is inside out with the nerves on the outside and the photosensitive pigments on the inside. Thus, a photon needs to traverse the network of nerves in order to reach the pigments which would then trigger the nerves. Thus, we lose photons in the process.And on top of that, it requires that the nerve tissue must then pierce the pigment network and creates a blind spot.Cephalopoid eyes, however, are right side out. The pigments are on the outside and the nerves are on the inside. Thus, the photons don't have to pass through the nerve tissue in order to reach the receptors. And because the nerves are behind the pigment network, the nerves don't need to pierce the pigment network in order to reach the optic nerve and go to the brain.So if humans were made first, why did we get inside out eyes? We have such horrendous other engineering mistakes such as the way our spines and pelvises are poorly connected, leading to back problems. And the appendix. Why do we still have it? It can't get any smaller, though, because the way the blood vessels enter into it, making it any smaller tends to lead to strangulation of the organ and necrosis.I'm not saying that humans need to be the fastest or the strongest. I'm simply saying that why do we have such obvious mistakes that nobody would ever make?Why do we have a broken GLO gene? If humans aren't supposed to be able to synthesize vitamin C, why do we have any of the genetic components involved in the synthesis cycle? And why is gene 4 of 5 broken? Most of the other mammals have functional GLO genes, so why did we get the short end of the stick?

quote:

---

God altered the code just a bit.

---

But why did we get broken code? Why not simply remove the structure in toto?

quote:

---

first one is that humans may not be as wonderful as they sometimes think themselves to be.

---

I think you need to extend that. Because humans aren't as wonderful as they could be, it means that god isn't nearly as competent as he is made out to be.From whence came this assumption that the designer was intelligent? If life as we observe it was designed, it is clear that the designer didn't really know what he was doing.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Remember that we are talking Genus level, and that in other Genus groupings include species with much more divergent {genes\structural\morphological} differences than those between humans and chimps.Consider that this {human only} view is solely due to {original\on-going} bias that view humans as somehow special in nature to all other animals, certainly it was born in the days of rampant racism that originally had some races as inferior to others.For myself I would be happy to put them in Family Homindae that would put them equal to Australopithicus and the like -- that would be a reasonable place until more information comes along.Certainly Bonobos would qualify based on their sexual behavior alone

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Well something here doesn't add up, because the human genome project is not concerned with other species.As far as genetic comparisons go I was given this link (I think it was Trixie, but it may have been Deneesha) on another thread:Search NCBI databases - NLMThis was in relation to any studies for closeness of human DNA to Bonobos (Pan paniscus) and Chimp (Pan troglodytes) regarding which is closer to human. This site is a database of genetic information.What is clear is that the full genomes of both Bonobos and Chimp are not complete yet (and thus the relative genetic closeness in tentative at best), and thus the statement that the "only" difference is a folded sequence has to be totally bogus, imao.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hi Rrhain,You wrote:

quote:

---

Part of the difference between human and chimpanzee biology, it seems, is that humans have much more expression of certain proteins than others. With regard to the brain, humans express some proteins much more than chimpanzees. It isn't just the genes. It's also the gene regulation and expression.

---

I was thinking about this comment today while at work. It dawned on me that PERHAPS the fellow was trying to say the very similar DNA sequences are getting expressed differently when proteins are made...as you've indicated here...and he just didn't quite have the understanding to communicate the idea as you have. Now I feel bad for running here and kinda poking fun at him--like I haven't ever said something stupid because I was talking about something somewhat (or, in some cases, completely) out of my league.--TL

Hi Rrhain, Hmmm...the photon loss, for me, has caused relatively few problems. And, if cephalopoids are octopi and such, then there is at least a slight difference in environmental variables that needs to be considered. Could it be that in the air, it is best to lose photons so as not to overload the vision system with light energy. Yet, for the cephalopoids, the water is already filtering out many photons and, so they get a reversed design to make up for that fact? Just a guess. Could be any number of reasons why a designer might do something like that.Something else to consider is that, if the Bible is true, then we are no longer living in the original, optimal edenic environment...the Flood, which I'm not assuming you believe, destroyed that.Of course, God knew He'd send a Flood to destroy the paradise and that afterwards we'd be intelligent but rather needy creatures. You seem to be assuming He wouldn't want us to be needy. Consider the following verse (and there are many that could be used): I have never had the impression that the God of the Bible intended our present bodies to be perfect in this life (at least not after the Fall in Eden). Jesus (God in the flesh) said, "..in the world ye shall have tribulation..." (John 16:33) Job said, "Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble" (Job 14:1). If you'll bear with one more biblical selection: Now, I am not using these verses to convince you to believe in the God of the Bible as I do, I am only pointing out that the God of the Bible seems very aware of the imperfections and troubles in humanity. He also, as far as I can tell, is saying that He is responsible for these things, at least in some cases (exceptions possibly being when damage is self-inflicted--for instance, if I eat McDonald's morning, noon, and night).So, right after creation we lived in the optimal environment. Sin changed that by introducing death. But even then we lived to be nearly 1000 years old. After the Flood the resulting environmental damage has caused our life span to diminish down to the 100 years we experience (if lucky) today.You seem to be assuming He would want it to be perfect for us right now. He seems to indicate that perfection is possible only in the hereafter. So, IF you are referring to the God of the Bible (and you might not be), then I'd say you have misunderstood Him (if I have read my Bible correctly).--TL

If we can't, then what's the point in talking about it? If it was the intention of the Creator to make things look like they evolved, then shouldn't we be talking about them like they evolved? That you're aware of. Since no human being has ever had optimum eyes, who's to say what you're missing? Imagine being a blind man in a world of blind men. Would you have any reason to feel like you were missing something? By what mechanism would water reverse our retinas? How? For instance how does water break functional genes in our genetics?

But hold on your Blind man quote is nothing at all to do with the "eye problem" - that person was born blind. How is that related to the relative merit of our eyes against other animals?

This thread will be temporarily closed it it wanders off the topic of our relationship to chimps. The details of our eyes (which are not like octopuses but are like chimps) isn't relevant.In noted earlier that the "re-use" of genetic sequences is an example of the efficiency of the designer. Now we see that differences are another choice of the designer. However, the "designer" hypothosis has no clue as to when or if the designer will make such choices. It is a non-starter as far as an explanation of anything is concerned.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 01-16-2005 17:29 AM

Well, you answered it yourself by indicating that I believe the Bible. And if that's true, then I believe: And: Male and female did not evolve; we were created that way.Yes, I believe the Bible, and believe God created as he stated (in 6 literal days) and did NOT need millions/billions of years of pain, suffering and "survival of the fittest" before he could pronounce his creation "good".Ah, but you ask if I believe in "evolution" then we have a problem, because we'll wind up with all sorts of evolutionists responding to this post! Because we clearly have the terms Macro and Micro evolution. Micro is observable, but Macro is not (and doesn't even make sense). But there's already a forum that haas debated Micro and Macro evolution, so DON'T start with me here!!!
LOOK OUT!!! Here comes ADMIN!!!

Some of the most telling factors pointing out our close kinship to chimps (and other great apes) are the "broken" genes we share - not just our GLO pseudogene that Rrhain mentions, but a urate oxidase gene and a whole raftfull of genes that even many other primates use for odorant receptors and vomeronasal organ receptors.That, and we have the exact same bone count and muscle count as chimps - different shapes for many, but the same ones. Including the muscle that would flex our tails if we didn't have fused coccyges (= more than one coccyx.)

Sorry, I was just being facetious to make a point. I probably shouldn't have done that. It's the part about how much apes resemble man, but yet evilutionists have no clue what the apes evolved from (AND no evidence whatsoever despite their sputtering about fossil evidence). I'll be more serious in the future."Junk" DNA has become a laughable term, yes indeed. And I predicted this would happen, along with many other Christians (and even NON-Christians!). Evilutionists used to spout the idea of "junk" DNA and that our God must be STUPID if he made something that contained so much USELESS stuff. No matter what we said, the scientists still claimed that MOST of DNA was JUNK and had no purpose. Well, all that has CHANGED recently! What a surprise! They have found JUNK DNA plays a VERY important role after all! And now the evilutionists are acting like this is an incredible discovery and they're even making a big deal out of "discovering" this! Unlike the Bible, their scientific theories continue to change.