More fun for believers in Creationism and Intelligent Design

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat May 27, 2006 8:03 am

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/va ... 04789.html

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat May 27, 2006 8:40 am

The link works

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

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sat May 27, 2006 11:29 am

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 · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue May 30, 2006 5:36 am

[QUOTE=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.

[/QUOTE]

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 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:50 am

[QUOTE=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?[/QUOTE]
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 · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:10 am

[QUOTE=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?

[/QUOTE]

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 · Post by **Lestat** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:12 am

[QUOTE=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?

[/QUOTE]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 · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:40 am

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

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 · Post by **snoopyofour** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:19 am

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 · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Tue May 30, 2006 12:13 pm

[QUOTE=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?[/QUOTE]

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 · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue May 30, 2006 1:10 pm

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]Read some Kant, its better than coffee...if you manage to understand him that is.[/QUOTE]

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="Luis]
They'd have aids to point as the Godly toe against our sins (wasnt it "]

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 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Tue May 30, 2006 1:52 pm

[QUOTE=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"

[/QUOTE]
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=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.[/QUOTE]
lol never mind. And I wasn't talking about evolution, I meant the existence of dinosaurs period.

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]You guys are all having an Enlightenment hangover. Read some Kant, its better than coffee...if you manage to understand him that is.[/QUOTE]
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=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.[/QUOTE]
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 · Post by **snoopyofour** » Tue May 30, 2006 2:19 pm

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 · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Tue May 30, 2006 2:42 pm

[QUOTE=snoopyofour] This casts doubt on alot of things not least of which is the scientific method.[/QUOTE]

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 · Post by **snoopyofour** » Tue May 30, 2006 3:57 pm

"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.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Tue May 30, 2006 4:00 pm

[QUOTE=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)[/QUOTE]

[ quote ]*text*[/ quote ] without the spaces.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Tue May 30, 2006 4:03 pm

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
Could you kindly point out to me where in my post I recommended reading anything, seeing as I didn't do any such thing? I only listed a couple Kant articles I read in Philosophy class years ago.

And if rational structures don't actually exist, doesn't his own line of thinking involve a rational structure in and of itself, and therefore preclude itself?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue May 30, 2006 5:51 pm

[quote="Chim]Do you happen to have any links or possible articles to back this up? Not that I'm questioning you"]

There is no absolute "proof" as you say, but there is very strong evidence around. That HIV was transmitted to humans from chimps is close to a "fact" now. You can check out Dr. Beatrice Hahns work, she is one of the leading scientists in this field. Her group published this article in Science (the world No 2 leading scientific journal for all sciences) recently,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /1126531v1

You need a university library with subscription to read the full article, and in the text you will find many useful references of previous research.

[quote="snoopyofour]
Afraid Kant doesn't discriminate"]

First, what exactly have you read by Kant? Kant is not saying that rational structures are artifical, he is saying that the human perception and cognition process gives us only a representation of the "ding an sich", BUT that objective reality exists and reason takes us closer to the "ding un sich", ie the objective reality, than merely psychologistic intuitive perception would do. Thus, I do not understand what you refer to when you claim "I know that science is one of the things Kant hits the hardest". Especially not since the scientific method as it is today, starting from the late 19th century positivism over through Popper and Kuhn, did not exist in Kant's time. Clarification with references, please? Kant is not the easiest philosopher to read, but I do think you misunderstand him if you interpret him as being one of the founders of postmodern theory.

Compare Kant with the following:

"Postmodern interpretation is introspective and anti-objectivist which is a form of individualized understanding. It is more a vision than data observation. In anthropology interpretation gravitates toward narrative and centers on listening to and talking with the other" (Rosenau 1993, p.119).

"For postmodernists there are an endless number of interpretations. Foucault argues that everything is interpretation" (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983: 106).

"no interpretation can be regarded as superior to any other" (Latour 1988: 182-3).

You yourself may be post-modernistic anti-objectivist and claim that subjetivism is as true as anything can be and all interpretations have equal value. This is a common opinion in today's society, and it fits in very well with religious fundamentalism as well as ego-centred subjectivistic emotionalism ("science is not more correct that personal subjective experience"). However, your personal opinions aside, I really wonder why you feel the need to drag Kant into these opinions.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:00 pm

That's why I said "clearly I'm not asking for absolute proof;" I know such proof does not exist.

I'll have to check and see if my university has a subscription to that thing, but right now, I'm a teeny bit buzzed and cannot fathom researching anything beyond what's at the bottom of my glass. :laugh: And thanks for the link.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:27 pm

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]That's why I said "clearly I'm not asking for absolute proof;" I know such proof does not exist. [/QUOTE]

Yes, that's what I meant, "like you were saying, there is no absolute proof". Maybe I didn't phrase myself correctly, as usual