Hmm.... ;-)
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 ...
What is your agenda in this debate?
Many thanks.
The brain may be evolving but what we're putting in it is not.
Could you relate thermodynamics to evolution?
Not "as gods", but gods, pure and simple. This striving defines the humans. Otherwise, remain monkeys.
Maybe gods compared to monkeys.
But Human. Just Human. That means a lot. But still no more, no less.
Can you?
Thermodynamics is science, and engineering--a serious study of what God created. A physical science, as opposed to "Women's Studies." I took two terms of Thermodynamics at Syracuse University. Have you studied it?
Evolution is a flawed theory, that with present data fails every Scientific concept and hypothesis.
Before you ask me more questions, explain to me how the theory of "evolution" is valid.
Thanks for the ping!
Easily. Start by answering a few simple questions, and you shall have the power to answer your own question yourself.
The Laws of Theromodynamics are axiomatic, and are unassailed maxims of physical science which govern the physical universe. Do you agree?
The premise of evolution may not reside outside the contraints imposed under the the Laws of Thermodynamics, and remain a valid scientific proposition. Do you agree?
The concepts of order and disorder are diametric opposites and are by definition mutually exclusive concepts. Do you agree?
If the answers to all of the above is, "yes" proceed to the last question.
Does the premise of evolution propose that order in the physical and chemical properties of the universe may arise from an initial statsis defined by randomness and disorder inherent within the physical and chemical componenets of that universe?
If your answer to the above question is "yes," you have answered correctly.
Upon answering the the question correctly, you will have related thermodynamics to evolution. At the same time you will have also identified the premise of evolution as being a premise lying outside the Laws of Thermodynamics. In so doing you will have also rendered the premise of evolution as something which lies outside the Laws which govern physical and chemical science.
If the premise of evolution by definition lies outside the Laws which govern physical and chemical science, evolution has no basis in physical or chemical science and may not be considered a valid basis for any study of either physical or chemical sciences which proceeds in the context of the premise.
Mind elaborating on how evolution proposes such a thing?
He just did. You are not looking for an honest discussion. You are trying to justify your own beliefs of Atheism---instead of Theism.
The ultimate knowledge that God will judge us all is what you fear, and what you are trying to argue away.
You will not be successful.
By the way--your spelling of these terms "austoned" and "ignornance" are in error--they are not words--but OK. I don't mean to be petty, but this is ridiculous.
Upon answering the the question correctly, you will have related thermodynamics to evolution
Really?
Be careful---God is watching---you too. And He knows everything.
'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'"
Numbers 14:18
some related links:
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/234594/researchers_find_human_brain_is_still_evolving/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5741/1717
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5741/1720
Wouldn't that be cerebral fluid? Synovial fluid is in the knuckles. Oh, I see...nevermind ;)
I am not Dimensio, so I realize your question was not directed at me, but my observations are that faith in God is really faith in the word of other men throughout history. To trust them is to deny the possibility that they may have been delusional, misunderstood through the ages, deceived, or possibly even deceivers themselves.
That said, I accept that God as He is perceived may indeed exist, albeit there is no way that perception can truly be free of man's interpretation. But if He does exist, then without a doubt He is not and cannot be constrained by any law, scientific or otherwise, that man has created. As such, science could never define, prove, or disprove Him. Anyone who tries to do so is motivated by their own agenda. This holds true whether that goal is to deny or to validate His existence.
It is human nature to be curious. To this end, science was created by man to define his environment. It is also human nature to try to understand that which he cannot. That is the gap religion fills. The two are different mechanisms, with different rules. It is folly to try to use one in place of, or to discredit, the other.
But did they look for any profile on Neanderthalis with regard to this. After all much of the earliest art as well as the "religious burial" of the dead is Neanderthal and not sapiens sapiens.
BEER!!!
Zort.
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.