Posted on 09/08/2005 5:16:56 PM PDT by Mike Bates
The evolution of the human brain is not quite a done deal, say researchers who've uncovered genetic evidence that man's mysterious gray matter is still undergoing beneficial change.
The scientists make their claim based on the recent evolutionary history of two genes -- microcephalin and abnormal spindle-like microcephaly-associated (ASPM) -- which appear to regulate brain size.
Over thousands of years, both genes seem to be generating new and improved versions of themselves -- beneficial mutations that are spreading rapidly among the human population to reshape and strengthen brain capacity.
"I think a lot of people might consider humans to be at the pinnacle of evolutionary lineage -- that we have achieved an advanced state as a species, and we have basically become the end-game," said study co-author Bruce T. Lahn, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and assistant professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago. "But what we found indicates that the species -- particularly when it comes to the brain, which is perhaps our most defining feature -- is still evolving."
In the Sept. 9 issue of Science, Lahn and his colleagues report on the results of two genetic analyses -- the first conducted among 90 men and women and a chimpanzee, and the second among almost 1,200 men and women. The participant pools were drawn from 59 ethnic groups from all over the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
...he said, posting on the internet through a computer...
If your generation happens to be the Baby Boomers, you won't have to wait that long for your generation to be thought of as pin heads.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
I agree when associations of scientists take ethical positions, they are overstepping their boundaries as scientists. This is a position I disagree with and don't believe they should take, simply because good physicians are not necessarily good politicians. But if it came to a strict medical issue, believe me, I would take the advice of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons very seriously.
This is a no-brainer...
I'd be more likely to side with you on this; certain issues (i.e. homosexuality, abortion, etc.) are so agenda-driven on both ends of the spectrum that it's hard to trust any immediate scientific conclusion about them (at least not without more extensive research).
Even if their research is right, there's more to the moral issue of abortion than whether the fetus can feel pain or not; it's an issue of when life itself begins. (Enough about that from me - I have no desire to steer this thread into the abortion issue.)
That you find you can not answer affiratively to any one of the questions posed reveals that the concepts upon which the simple questions themselves are based may simply be beyond your ability to understand at this time.
Furthermore, since you seem to need more explanation you are simply admitting that you need to better acquaint yourself with thermodynamics.
For starters consult the link on SkyPilot's post #81, and get back to me when you are ready to answer my very simple questions.
Not only that, but even if the earth was a closed system, that wouldn't guarantee the combined entropy of all systems on the earth is lower than it was in the past. The combined biomass of all life on earth is so insignificant next to the mass of the Earth that an increase in complexity of life would have no significant effect on its entropy. Even if the biomass itself was a closed system, there's no guarantee that its entropy is lower now than it was at any previous point in evolutionary history. Does 200 lbs. of protozoans have more or less entropy than a 200 lb. person? I don't know. Good luck to anyone trying to measure that!
Sorry about going off, but the whole 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument is so off-the-wall and ludicrous that it boggles my mind; many creationists even know better than to use it.
Yes, nevertheless, the granddaddy of all creationist websites, the Institute for Creation Research, has stuff like this posted:
Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy, by Henry Morris. Excerpt:
Not only is there no evidence that evolution ever has taken place, but there is also firm evidence that evolution never could take place. The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.
With great respect CarolinaGuitarman, I submit to you that Science is nothing more than a study to try and figure out what God did, and how He did it. So is Mathematics's. We brake our arms patting ourselves on the back for discerning what Almighty God has the power to do. But, that is the problem with mankind all the way back to the Garden of Eden--we wish to be our own gods. Hillary Clinton is a good example--and so is every liberal.
On the subject of truth, I must say the bible passage that invokes the greatest thought in me is the conversation between Pilate and Christ. Pilate cynically asked Christ "what is truth?" and then walked away? The reality was he crucified Truth itself.
Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." "What is truth?" Pilate asked.
John 18: 33-38
I once heard a conversation a brilliant Christian apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, had with a student at Harvard University who was arguing the premise of A-Theism (or atheism). He related a story he had about a conversation with an atheist at the University of the Philippines. Ravi said that without a moral law giver, there is no morality. Life is meaningless if there is no God. The student stood up at shouted at the top of his lungs:
"Then everything is meaningless!"
Ravi said he didn't mean that, the man insisted he did, and they went back and forth. Dr. Zacharias then said:
ZACHARIAS: "Is what you just said meaningful?"
STUDENT: "Huh?"
ZACHARIAS: "You heard me. Is what you just said meaningful, or meaningless?"
STUDENT: "Uhh....."
I am not the smartest person in the world, far from it. But I'll tell you this: accepting who God is is your choice. Don't believe for one millisecond that your are smarter than Him, or more superior. Your ultimate fate is not determined by your intellect, but by your submission.
So is mine.
Take care.
Brake=break
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.