More fun for believers in Creationism and Intelligent Design

[C Elegans]

The number one scientific journal Nature published this last week:

Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees

Nick Patterson, Daniel J. Richter, Sante Gnerre, Eric S. Lander and David Reich

Abstract

The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.

The authors have investigated genetic divergence by comparing the genome of five primate species. They suggested a model that would explain the results, and they also make testable predictions for this. Further studies will show if their suggested model is correct or not, but for the time being they are not going to win any popularity contests among the religous fundamentalists in the US.
The full article can be found here, but I am at work so I can't test if you have access to it or not. If not, I can post it later.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04789.html

[dragon wench]

The link works

lol! Looks very interesting, I'll read it later since I need to be out of the house soon.

[Chimaera182]

Meh. Studies and models and irrefutable evidence of evolution will all be seen as a trick by God to fool those who are not righteous.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera182 Meh. Studies and models and irrefutable evidence of evolution will all be seen as a trick by God to fool those who are not righteous.

I'd like to hear when they start arguing that their god tricked humans to have sex with chimps. Or maybe it is only the sinful who are tempted by the devil who interpret the genetic models like this?

[Chimaera182]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans I'd like to hear when they start arguing that their god tricked humans to have sex with chimps. Or maybe it is only the sinful who are tempted by the devil who interpret the genetic models like this?

lol. It goes hand-in-hand with the dinosaur fossils being put there by God or the Devil to trick us. I'll never get over that arguement. Looking back on it, I'm a little surprised my funadmentally-Catholic grandmother didn't mind my being such a dino-freak when I was a kid; she even supported it, from what I remember. At least she didn't believe that bizarre line (I'm guessing, anyway). And gods of the past have turned into animals and had sex with humans; is the other way around really that far of a stretch?

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera182 And gods of the past have turned into animals and had sex with humans; is the other way around really that far of a stretch?

Could this be the secret answer to "virgin birth"? We should start considering writing a book about it. It could be called "The chimpanzee code"

[Lestat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera182 And gods of the past have turned into animals and had sex with humans; is the other way around really that far of a stretch?

Humans turning into gods and having sex with animals?

On your Catholic grandmother: the RCC actually has come to terms with evolution, but don't ask me when exactly.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat On your Catholic grandmother: the RCC actually has come to terms with evolution, but don't ask me when exactly.

That was a long time ago, back in 1950 Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis that there is no contradiction between christianity and evolution. He wrote:

"...the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

Later, also John Paul II wrote:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

and that evolution is

"as an effectively proven fact."

RCC sees no contradiction between christianity, evolution or the "big bang". The concept of Young Earth Creationism and more recently, "Intelligent design" originates from American fundamentalist christians.

[snoopyofour]

You guys are all having an Enlightenment hangover. Read some Kant, its better than coffee...if you manage to understand him that is.

[Luis Antonio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans I'd like to hear when they start arguing that their god tricked humans to have sex with chimps. Or maybe it is only the sinful who are tempted by the devil who interpret the genetic models like this?

They'd have aids to point as the Godly toe against our sins (wasnt it "proven" once again that aids came from the monkeys?).

Well, I dont know, I have religious views and "scientific" views, they dont fit, but this doesnt bother me a lot. The true thing that bothers me is when one of the sides is rubbed in my face, and that someone pretends to know the truth about it. That really bothers me.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopyofour Read some Kant, its better than coffee...if you manage to understand him that is.

I read Kant as a teenager. I remember I had to read the parts about the transcendental self in "Critique of Pure Reason" several times. Why do you suggest Kant is of interest to the discussion in this thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luis They'd have aids to point as the Godly toe against our sins (wasnt it "proven" once again that aids came from the monkeys?).

The HIV virus does indeed come from an immunodeficit virus in monkeys, which was transmitted to chimpanzees and mutated to SIV, which then was transmitted to humans as HIV.

Simulations using the genetic sequence of HIV virus from older and newer blood samples, has resulted in the estimation that the HIV virus was transmitted from chimpanzees to man in the 1930's. The first chimp-human transmissions most likely occurred in South East Cameroon and the route of transmission was either that a person was bitten by a chimp with SIV or that he cut himself while slaughtering the ape.

[Chimaera182]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans Could this be the secret answer to "virgin birth"? We should start considering writing a book about it. It could be called "The chimpanzee code"

LOL. It's sure to be a best-seller. We can sell the movie rights, make computer games out of it... Oh, think of all the minds we'll touch with The Chimpanzee Code.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat Humans turning into gods and having sex with animals? On your Catholic grandmother: the RCC actually has come to terms with evolution, but don't ask me when exactly.

lol never mind. And I wasn't talking about evolution, I meant the existence of dinosaurs period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopyofour You guys are all having an Enlightenment hangover. Read some Kant, its better than coffee...if you manage to understand him that is.

Kant's old hat. I read The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals and The Ontological Argument: Pro and Con which was with Kant and St. Anselm. This was five years ago. I remember none of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans The HIV virus does indeed come from an immunodeficit virus in monkeys, which was transmitted to chimpanzees and mutated to SIV, which then was transmitted to humans as HIV. Simulations using the genetic sequence of HIV virus from older and newer blood samples, has resulted in the estimation that the HIV virus was transmitted from chimpanzees to man in the 1930's. The first chimp-human transmissions most likely occurred in South East Cameroon and the route of transmission was either that a person was bitten by a chimp with SIV or that he cut himself while slaughtering the ape.

Do you happen to have any links or possible articles to back this up? Not that I'm questioning you, but I was hoping for some empircal data (clearly I'm not asking for absolute proof that that's how humans became infected with HIV, since last I heard, no one was still absolutely sure on that fact); I was going to do research on HIV for a story I wanted to write in future. Hence my asking.

[snoopyofour]

I don't have any idea why Kant and Anselm would be in the same book together. The ontological argument was a totally rational and Kant is all about the limits of reason. Why are you recommending me books you don't remember anything about? Anyway, Kant may be old but he is still one of the founders of postmodern theory which is still in its infancy. Its just easier to recommend a name rather than an entire philosophy/artform/lifestyle/condition. Oh and for whoever asked why Kant was of interest here...because you're rational empiricists and Kant's whole thing is to show that rational structures don't actually exist, we make them up. This casts doubt on alot of things not least of which is the scientific method.

[Luis Antonio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopyofour This casts doubt on alot of things not least of which is the scientific method.

And religious method too, AFAIK. i've read a wee little bit of Kant, and I dislike his theories, but they're interesting anyway. I'm a bit more Nieztche myself... anyway, that doesnt matter. Kant puts everything against the wall, not only scientific method, and he seems (to me) to fight pre made non changing concepts far more than the scientifical concepts, which change every now and then to "better tuned up perception" from ourselves.

Or so I think.

[snoopyofour]

"he seems (to me) to fight pre made non changing concepts far more than the scientifical concepts, which change every now and then to "better tuned up perception" from ourselves." (How do you quote stuff)

Afraid Kant doesn't discriminate, he's not saying that some rational structures are artificial, he's saying that they all are. I actually don't know what the latter part of your sentence is saying but I know that science is one of the things Kant hits the hardest. And he might be attacking traditional religious arguments but he isn't attacking religious arguments in the form that Kierkegaard established them. As for Nietzsche, he would find a creationist and an evolutionist equally dilluded.