Posted on 08/11/2002 3:59:04 PM PDT by vannrox
Are you arguing as honestly as you know how?
Hah! You're not G3K!
You got me flummoxed here. How about we start from scratch with revamped question.
You do realize that your agreement to the above supports the contention of the Christians that religion is good and atheism is bad, don't you?
Do you understand that the origin of the human species was over by the time of any historical human whosoever?
And Peter Pan and the Tooth Fairy, yes.
You and I think that because we have been ingrained to think that. Saddam Hussein would disagree -- as would everybody who thinks they could be a Saddam. They would think the most desirable government is them ruling and us as slaves.
Now, we're right and Hussein, Stalin et al were/are wrong. But our understanding didn't occur by random chance in a vacuum.
Our nation is founded -- with premeditation on Christ's teachings.
Franklin and Jefferson -- who didn't believe in the Lord's divinity -- wanted his teachings established. Adams, Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry (should he be pinged?) were fairly traditional Christians and weren't going to disagree.
And because you and I are Americans guided by Christian values -- whether we believe that Jesus is God or not -- we think that our goal should be to have a "stable society where the happiness of as many people as possible is as high as possible."
So if the only reason you don't kill, steal and rape is your belief in a god who punishes you if you commit the aforementioned and rewards you if you refrain from doing so, then I really hope you never lose your belief in this god and become an atheist.
The reason why I engage in discussions on this topic with other people here on FR is to show that a lack of belief in a god does not automatically make you a rapist, thief or even a murderer.
Regards
Shaw and Russell were among the guiding plotters of the Fabian Socialists and hence responsible for disproportiona share the headaches we conservatives have suffered during the last century.
So it really seems that everyone tries to use the teachings of Christ (or any other god, prophet, etc.) to justify whatever he thinks is right.
But they weren't founded on Christ's teachings. They used the Bible to justify maintaining their power -- divine right etc. -- but Europe's royal houses were founded on the acquistion of personal power.
The simplest case is the grand canyon. We're not talking about a "lightning strike" here; we're talking about an electrical discharge between this planet and some other cosmic body, a comet, asteroid, or another planet in prehistoric times. The fractal topography, the sinuous rills and infinite quantity of "tributaries" are precisely what you get running an arc welder to rocky ground. The material got vaporized and blasted off into space so that we don't find the huge pile of debris you'd expect out in the Colorado river delta.
There is no plausible case for the idea of the Colorado river carving that canyon out of stone. Real rivers which are 20 miles across are relatively shallow; you can wade out into the Amazon or the Volga quite a ways before you have to swim. The last thing in the world you'd ever expect to see walking up to the shore of something like the Volga would be a 2000' straight drop with sharp and pristine rocks in evidence everywhere you look and mesas which, had the whole fricking scene been that of a river, would have been 3000' below water, also with sharp and pristine rocks rather than being glassy smooth as you'd expect.
I don't mean to imply otherwise. Forgive me if I did.
They are still the enemy, though. :-)
Are humans the result of genetic engineering and/or re-engineering in past ages? I think that's the way you have to bet it.
Evolutionists are looking at the wrong end of the "lineup" or whatever you want to call it of hominid and human types. The problem is at the near end and not the far end.
Recent studies of neanderthal DNA turned up the result that neanderthal DNA is "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", and that there is no way we could interbreed with them or be descended from them via any process resembling evolution. That says that anybody wishing to believe that modern man evolved has to come up with some closer hominid, i.e. a plausible ancestor for modern man, and that the closer hominid would stand closer to us in both time and morphology than the neanderthal, and that his works and remains should be very easy to find, since neanderthal remains and works are all over the map. Of course, no such closer hominid exists; all other hominids are much further from us than the neanderthal.
An evolutionist could try to claim that we and the neanderthal both are descended from some more remote ancestor 200,000 years ago, but that would be like claiming that dogs couldn't be descended from wolves, and must therefore be descended from fish, i.e. the claim would be idiotic.
That leaves three possibilities: modern man was created from scratch very recently, was genetically re-engineered from the neanderthal, or was imported from elsewhere in the cosmos.
Aside from that conundrum, there is direct evidence of genetic engineering in past ages.
Henry Gee
Monday February 12, 2001
The Guardian
The potentially-poisonous Japanese fugu fish has achieved notoriety, at least among scientists who haven't eaten any, because it has a genome that can be best described as "concise". There is no "junk" DNA, no waste, no nonsense. You get exactly what it says on the tin. This makes its genome very easy to deal with in the laboratory: it is close to being the perfect genetic instruction set. Take all the genes you need to make an animal and no more, stir, and you'd get fugu. Now, most people would hardly rate the fugu fish as the acme of creation. If it were, it would be eating us, and not the other way round. But here is a paradox. The human genome probably does not contain significantly more genes than the fugu fish. What sets it apart is - and there is no more succinct way to put this - rubbish.
The human genome is more than 95% rubbish. Fewer than 5% of the 3.2bn As, Cs, Gs and Ts that make up the human genome are actually found in genes. It is more litter-strewn than any genome completely sequenced so far. It is believed to contain just under 31,780 genes, only about half as many again as found in the simple roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans (19,099 genes): yet in terms of bulk DNA content, the human genome is almost 30 times the size.A lot is just rubbish, plain and simple. But at least half the genome is rubbish of a special kind - transposable elements. These are small segments of DNA that show signs of having once been the genomes of independent entities. Although rather small, they often contain sequences that signal cellular machinery to transcribe them (that is, to switch them on). They may also contain genetic instructions for enzymes whose function is to make copies and insert the copies elsewhere in the genome. These transposable elements litter the human genome in their hundreds of thousands. Many contain genes for an enzyme called reverse transcriptase - essential for a transposable element to integrate itself into the host DNA.
The chilling part is that reverse transcriptase is a key feature of retroviruses such as HIV-1, the human immunodeficiency virus. Much of the genome itself - at least half its bulk - may have consisted of DNA that started out, perhaps millions of years ago, as independent viruses or virus-like entities. To make matters worse, hundreds of genes, containing instructions for at least 223 proteins, seem to have been imported directly from bacteria. Some are responsible for features of human metabolism otherwise hard to explain away as quirks of evolution - such as our ability to metabolise psychotropic drugs. Thus, monoamine oxidase is involved in metabolising alcohol.
If the import of bacterial genes for novel purposes (such as drug resistance) sounds disturbing and familiar, it should - this is precisely the thrust of much research into the genetic modification of organisms in agriculture or biotechnology.
So natural-born human beings are, indeed, genetically modified. Self-respecting eco-warriors should never let their children marry a human being, in case the population at large gets contaminated with exotic genes!One of the most common transposable elements in the human genome is called Alu - the genome is riddled with it. What the draft genome now shows quite clearly is that copies of Alu tend to cluster where there are genes. The density of genes in the genome varies, and where there are more genes, there are more copies of Alu. Nobody knows why, yet it is consistent with the idea that Alu has a positive benefit for genomes. To be extremely speculative, it could be that a host of very similar looking Alu sequences in gene-rich regions could facilitate the kind of gene-shuffling that peps up natural genetic variation, and with that, evolution. This ties in with the fact that human genes are, more than most, fragmented into a series of many exons, separated by small sections of rubbish called introns - rather like segments of a TV programme being punctuated by commercials.
The gene for the protein titin, for example, is divided into a record-breaking 178 exons, all of which must be patched together by the gene-reading machinery before the finished protein can be assembled. This fragmentation allows for alternative versions of proteins to be built from the same information, by shuffling exons around. Genomes with less fragmented genes may have a similar number of overall genes - but a smaller palette of ways to use this information. Transposable elements might have helped unlock the potential in the human genome, and could even have contributed to the fragmentation of genes in the first place (some introns are transposable elements by another name). This, at root, may explain why human beings are far more complex than roundworms or fruit flies. If it were not for trashy transposable elements such as Alu, it might have been more difficult to shuffle genes and parts of genes, creating alternative ways of reading the "same" genes. It is true that the human genome is mostly rubbish, but it explains what we are, and why we are who we are, and not lying on the slab in a sushi bar.
• Deep Time by Henry Gee will be published shortly in paperback by Fourth Estate. He is a senior editor of Nature. Related articles
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.