Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Animal Body. So What?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Schimpanse_Zoo_Leipzig
Humans and chimpanzees are genetically similar. Some estimate the similarity at 98%. Others slightly less. A lot of ink has been spilt regarding this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here for just a few examples of the thousands of articles that have been written on the subject. What is all the fuss about?  It seems to me that much of the fuss is accounted for by the fact that whether they are in the ID or the creationist camp, many theists have an adverse visceral reaction to the data, and for that reason they work very hard to discredit or downplay it. I once felt this way. But as John Adams famously said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

The stubborn fact of the matter is that human bodies are very similar to chimpanzee bodies both morphologically and genetically. I have made peace with that fact, and to my theist friends who find the data troubling, I say calm down. Yes, you have an animal body that is more or less similar to the bodies of other animals. That your body is more similar to some animals – and in the case of the chimpanzee very similar indeed – is a fact of no great theological consequence, because you are not your body. Even if we were 99.999999999999% similar both genetically and morphologically to chimpanzees, it would not matter, because it is the difference that counts, and that difference is not a material difference. The difference is spiritual in nature, and because it is spiritual in nature material comparisons are not just misleading; they are completely irrelevant.

Paul wrote to his friends at Corinth: “I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” II Cor. 5:8. Who was going to be present with the Lord when Paul was absent from his body? Why, Paul of course. Paul understood that he, Paul, transcended his physical body, and one day he would be separated from that body. This dualism is nowhere more apparent than in Paul’s discussion of the never-ending war being waged within:

I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Romans 8:22-24.

I am not here arguing for any particular theory of how this dualism works out, such as Cartesian substance dualism or hylomorphism. My point is that scripture clearly teaches a distinction between body and spirit, and it is the spirit, not the body, that is of particular (indeed, eternal) consequence. Nor does the fact that I am conceding the similarity between the human body and the chimpanzee body mean I have conceded anything important to the materialists. I have an animal body. So what? Whoever said I didn’t? This does not necessarily imply common descent, much less Darwinian evolution. For purposes of the present discussion I am merely stating the obvious: I have an animal body, the Linnean taxonomic classification of which is:
Classification

As a theist (especially a Christian theist), I am not troubled by the fact that I have an animal body.  Yes, I am an animal, but I am not merely an animal. I have an eternal spirit, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Comments
wd400 noted
First, this idea that you have that geneticists and evolutionary biologists are out to mislead the world in the cause of atheism really makes it very hard to make any progress. If you think everything I say is a trick in service of a religuous position why should I bother?
No, I don't think geneticists and evolutionary biologists are trying to mislead anyone. However, here's what I think has happened. Darwin's theory was a very reasonable and compelling alternative to the prevalent theogenic assumptions at the time. The sparse evidence available fit into the theory, and many researchers looked for other pieces of the puzzle. Since there was "no other game in town," Darwinism became a paradigm. As more research was completed, and more evidence was collected, weaknesses and paradoxes began to appear indicating that Darwinism was likely incomplete or incorrect. Nevertheless, because many people were so heavily invested ideologically, they tended to hang onto it beyond what the theory deserved. There's also a tendency by teachers to become dogmatic and media to sensationalize what scientists and researchers discovered without heeding their qualifying statements. I would like to emphasize that this is also true of people with religious beliefs. In my opinion the original motivation for ID was to treat biological systems as engineered, a change in the paradigm without focusing on the source of the engineering. Certainly, religious individuals found ID appealing, others thought anything short of creationism a sell out. From my perspective, the reason you are adamant about Darwinism as the evolutionary mechanism is that deep inside you *know* it to be true. This inner conviction is common to all people, whether it concerns a political party, a philosophy of life, dental practices, or whatever. The discipline of Science is supposed to help you shake off archaic beliefs, however most people have a hard time doing so. For example, I'm told that in dentistry, the old practices are being replaced by the modern, one retirement at a time. I'm sure that you will continue your adamant support for Darwinism, all the while experiencing increasing need to incorporate increasingly complex and unsatisfying interpretations of the data---and of course on my part, I will become increasingly skeptical. The scientific difference in my opinion is that the ID paradigm has been proving itself more pragmatic than the Darwinism paradigm in terms of facilitating the progress of science as the foray into "junk" DNA amply demonstrates. -QQuerius
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
wd400 @76, I rest my case. See ya around, dude. And enjoy your little time in the sun. It will soon come to an end.Mapou
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
In it, you’ll also see that he proposes that “junk” DNA can function as a sort of evolutionary scratch pad, sheltering hopeful genes from relentless Darwinian competition.
This is the basis for modern macro-evolutionary theory as espoused by Brosius and Allen MacNeill and apparently many others. The questions is can all of Allen's engines of variation produce enough variation to explain everything. Allen says it can. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-altenberg-sixteen/#comment-177256
Gil Dodgen: You wrote: “The problem as I see it is not getting enough variation, but getting enough original, novel, innovative variation.” That was the point to my list of 47 mechanisms for generating phenotypic variation. Several of the mechanisms listed are capable of producing as much genetic variation as there are elementary particles in the known universe, while others (such as whole genome fusion) are capable of producing novel genetic combinations equivalent to the “hybridization” of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the collected works of Anthony Trollope. In other words, the “engines of variation” are more than up to the task of generating anything that could conceivably be of use to a living organism (plus an immensely larger amount of useless variation). As to the question of whether any of the mechanisms in my list can produce “new” information, the answer is “yes”, so long as one recognizes that what really matters is the production of new phenotypic variation. As I have already pointed out, the exclusive concentration on genetic variation on the part of both evolutionary biologists (EBers) and IDers has until very recently blinded us to the tremendous potential of other mechanisms that produce the same effects (see Jablonka and Lamb/Evolution in Four Dimensions for a complete discussion).
My guess is that Allen's engines of variation cannot and will fail the big number test. The whole ID debate on evolution revolves around this question.jerry
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Mapou, First, this idea that you have that geneticists and evolutionary biologists are out to mislead the world in the cause of atheism really makes it very hard to make any progress. If you think everything I say is a trick in service of a religuous position why should I bother? I will bother one last time. In 2005, when the first draft of the chimp genome was released, you might have claimed the two genomes where 80% alignable and 98% identical when aligned, so they must be .8 * .98 ~= 78% identical. But if you did the same thing now, with the latest release of the chimp genome, you'd find 90% of the genomes are alignable giving .9 * .98 ~= 88% identity. Do you think the real percentage-identity between the two genomes should rely on how much work has been done to sequence them? The number of genes in a genome (or protein coding genes, which seems to be the number you are quoting) is not really relevant to calculating the similarity between them -- the bases are different or they're not, whether they make proteins is irrelevant.wd400
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
HELLO? Are there any Darwinist with a brain around here?Mapou
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
I’ve addresed your point multiple times. Unalignable sequences aren’t included because it’s not clear if they represent missing data in one or other assembly (the innitial chimp genome draft had low coverage), or highly repetitive sequences that have a corresponding sequence but can’t be uniquely mapped to it. As more and more of the chimp genome has been aligned to the human, the percentage identity has not decreased, so it’s not as if these sequences are mostly radically different than anything in the other genome. If you don’t belive me read the post by the YEC I linked to earlier. Or even better, check it for your self, there are loads and loads of raw sequencing data available for both species…
Aw, come on! One cannot make a valid similarity comparison if one only compares the sequences that are judged to be alignable. Alignable is another code word for similar. In other words, you are only using the similar sequences to compute similarity. Hello? And what about the fact that the margin of error regarding the actual number of genes in chimps and humans is a whopping 25%? And yet, even with these monumental uncertainties, you people somehow find a way to get 98% similarity between chimp and human genomes so you can run around gloating to your heart's content that evolution is true. I see the magic, alright, but it's not particularly clever magic. It's stupid and beneath common dignity.Mapou
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
For those of you that haven't read Dr. Ohno's short paper, I'd recommend reading it. In it, you'll also see that he proposes that "junk" DNA can function as a sort of evolutionary scratch pad, sheltering hopeful genes from relentless Darwinian competition. http://www.junkdna.com/ohno.html While not correct, Dr. Ohno's proposals are nevertheless excellent ideas. -QQuerius
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
I've addresed your point multiple times. Unalignable sequences aren't included because it's not clear if they represent missing data in one or other assembly (the innitial chimp genome draft had low coverage), or highly repetitive sequences that have a corresponding sequence but can't be uniquely mapped to it. As more and more of the chimp genome has been aligned to the human, the percentage identity has not decreased, so it's not as if these sequences are mostly radically different than anything in the other genome. If you don't belive me read the post by the YEC I linked to earlier. Or even better, check it for your self, there are loads and loads of raw sequencing data available for both species...wd400
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
wd400:
Mapou, that’s like as in alignable
That's precisely the point. How come the non-alignable sequences do not figure into the similarity computation? Why are you refusing to address the point I am making? That's mighty cowardly of you, a common trait amongst Darwinists. Grow a pair,man.Mapou
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Mapou,
Only certain bases are compared, the so-called “like bases“. I knew there was a dishonest bias somewhere but I did not expect it to be so blatant.
But you have to understand that it's all for a noble cause. But I'll tell you what's really truly amazing. Get ready for it. It's that ALL LIVING ORGANISMS are about 98% identical when homologous bases are compared! Note that some pairs of organisms don't have that many homologous bases, but nevertheless this once again proves evolution. ;-) -QQuerius
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Mapou, that's like as in alignable Querius, It never ceases to amaze me that people could read (repeadidly!) Ohno's paper and think anyone, let alone Ohno, ever claimed "A" was true. To quote
Aside from conVentional structural genes and regulatory genes, this 6% [i.e. the functional DNA]should ' include the promoter region and operator regions
Promoters and operators are non-coding DNA that Ohno included in the non-junk portion.wd400
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
It seems that the Darwinists love pick and choose the criticism that they feel comfortable with while ignoring the others hoping they will go away. Let me repost this previous question and see who among them has enough gonads to take the bait.
A chimp has between 20,000 and 25,000 genes by the latest estimate. But guess what? So does a human being. So if the margin of error regarding the actual number of genes in either species is 25%, isn't it rather strange that some people can be so confident that human and chimp genomes are 98% similar?
Any takers?Mapou
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Oops, looks like the posts crossed, and I missed a position between B and C, which dangles Dr. Ohno outside the bus: C+. It's not impossible that most of the differences between humans and chimps are due to non-coding DNA as was proposed by Kind and Wilson, but most non-coding DNA must still be junk, thus proving evolution. -QQuerius
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
wd400:
In fact, I think both are true. It’s also true that the non-coding regions of the human and chimp genomes are ~98% identical when like bases are compared).
There is it, folks, in black and white. Now we know where the 98% similarity comes from. Only certain bases are compared, the so-called "like bases". I knew there was a dishonest bias somewhere but I did not expect it to be so blatant.Mapou
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Dr JDD, Thanks for taking the time to write your insightful reply. Yesterday, as I was watching a video on some of the latest findings on quantum mechanics, it occurred to me how profoundly and fantastically more competent humans are than chimpanzees in intellectual capacity among other things---your point number two. An obvious conclusion is that non-coding DNA is likely to have a more important rather than less important role in the difference between Homo and Pan, a point apparently missed by those people who seem to have an ideological rather than a logical commitment to "junk" DNA. Speaking of junk DNA, it never ceases to amaze me how some people who should know better consistently reinterpret the point of Susumu Ohno's 1972 paper. Dr. Ohmo proposed that "junk" DNA was a trove of "fossil DNA" analogous to the extinct organisms found in strata, leftovers from evolution. Nearly every time I make this point, I take the time to review Dr. Ohno's paper. Nevertheless, people who seem to be ideologically committed to Darwin's 19th-century paradigm, do not want to concede the point. In the face of mounting discoveries regarding the function of non-coding DNA they are slowly ratcheting down in the face of the evidence: A. Non-coding DNA is junk that's left over from evolution. B. The majority of non-coding DNA is junk that obviously must be left over from evolution. C. Some non-coding DNA must definitely be left-over junk, which clearly and decisively proves that evolution musta happened. D. Non-coding DNA has been shown to play a vital role in the evolutionary process. It seems to me that wd400 has definitely dropped from an A to B, and might actually be on his way to C. We'll see. ;-) -QQuerius
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
You seem to be objecting to argument I didn't make. It's perfectly possible that most of the differences between humans can chimps are down to non-coding DNA (as King and Wilson suggested in 1975) and for most of the genome to be junk. In fact, I think both are true. It's also true that the non-coding regions of the human and chimp genomes are ~98% identical when like bases are compared).wd400
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
wd400, thanks for your response. However I feel you have failed to meet the point of my criticism of your original statement:
In fact the protein coding genes are a good deal more similar to the chimpanzee genome than other regions, which is one good reason to think the majority of the genome is junk (diverging along at the neutral rate, rather than being slowed by natural selection).
You state that there is high homology in the protein coding region far more than non-coding regions, therefore the conclusion is non-coding regions are junk. However I am not contesting that there is junk DNA, irrespective of the implications, I am contesting that as a logical conclusion. My argument is: 1) Protein coding regions of chimp and human are apparently highly homologous 2) Chimps and humans are incredibly distant in what defines them (apart from phenotype alone - but not excluding phenotypically) 3) Therefore, the differences between humans and chimps are more likely to be due to non-protein coding regions of the genome. In your reply, you seem focused on defending the existence of junk DNA, that it is the prominent content of the genome, and that we have known for years that there are non-coding RNAs with cellular function (but this is a very small percentage of DNA). You throw in the [passive backhand dig!] remark about undergraduates even knowing this but let me assure you the university I went to is one of the top in the UK for biological sciences, and yes back in the day, I was taught that non-coding regions are present with function but for a fact I was taught these were far less important and in far lower percent of the genome than we currently now understand to be the case. Fortunately as well, I did my undergraduate in the last 20 years. I am not contesting those things you are steering your reply to. I am contesting the natural conclusion you make from the observation that chimp and human DNA is so similar. Your interpretation is "this is good evidence the rest is junk" but that is on a presupposed Darwinian mindset. An unhinged conclusion would be that in fact, the differences between humans and chimps does not come down primarily to the proteins present and their amino acid sequences, but something else. EA has also shared this view however he has gone further and suggested it could/is even outside of the DNA itself. So I am a little surprised at your response and the conclusion you make from observed homology but to be frank, this is the Darwinian mindset in play. WRT the tail story, the point I made is that it is a deceptive conclusion through argument by ignorance. The argument presented to me was: 1) Human embryos show tail vertebrae appearance in their development 2) This is subsequently removed/destroyed and the coccyx remains 3) *and here is the crunch point* when we look in the human genome, we see the presence of the ancestral tail genes still present! You see, this argument is a deceptive one, unless the genes present are only for tail development and are completely switched off in humans. Now the Darwinist could argue that because we have lost tail development, the genes have evolved different uses, but that is not what is stated in the argument. The implication is that we have tail genes present in our genome and that this is their purpose - for forming tails. But unless there are genes I do not know about, the ones I have seen reported to be necessary for tail formation in other mammals are in fact crucical for a whole plethora of functions in all aspects of development and different organs and cell types. Therefore, to allude that because we see these genes in humans that is evidence that we once had a tail is deceptive and quite frankly, very bad science. [Furhter I should say, just because there appears visually to be a "tail like structure" when you observe embryos at certain stages does not imply or should automatically assume this is similar to a "tail" or even be called a tail. This early stage of development and the notochord formation has been abused by common descent advocates for that purpose, making out like a structure that is useless is formed and then destroyed, thus proof we once had a tail. That is quite an absurd and biased interpretation of a visual phenomenon and probably has not been cleared up as fast as it could have been due to clear ethical issues with establishing roles of different structures in the developing human embryo - issues not present with mice or other model organisms' developements.] This is similar to the arguments around homology and chimp-human DNA similarity that is portrayed all the time by evolutionists. There is an over-emphasis of the centrality of proteins in making an organism who they are, a down-playing of non-proteinacious products of the genome in an organisms development, and an overstating of thus how homology evidences common descent.Dr JDD
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
The central dogma is, more or less, that information can flow from nucleic acid to protein but not protein to nucleic acid. What this has to do with anything I can't imagine. But if want to explain how most of the non-coding DNA can be functional while apparently evolving without selection I'd like to know.wd400
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
This is a long way from the topic of the thread, but briefly. Of course some non-coding DNA is functional, Ohno knew this and every undergrad biologist trained in the last 40 years should know abut rRNAs and tRNAs. But it's very unlikely that most of the non-coding DNA is functional for a number of reasons, including that fact that most of it diverges at a rate equal to the individual mutation rate (or, if you'd rather, at rate equal the junkiest pseudogenes and broken transposons). There are certainly more non-coding RNAs known now than previously. But there is no reason to think most transcribed RNA is functional. As long as you have open chromatin and transcription factor binding sites RNA will be produced, and LINES and SINES move such sites around the genome. I don't know much about the development of tails, but human embroyos have tails and indeed the same morphogens are expressed in human embryonic tails as other mammals. Finally, I don't think "homology", as in percent-identity, is a great argument for common descent by itself. Rather it's suites of shared differences that make the case. For the human-chimp split we also have incomplete lineaege sorting with Gorilla and the presence of btween-species polymorphism to further place our species within the apes.wd400
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Dr JDD @58 cites wd400: "In fact the protein coding genes are a good deal more similar to the chimpanzee genome than other regions, which is one good reason to think the majority of the genome is junk (diverging along at the neutral rate, rather than being slowed by natural selection)." This is an example of the kind of mindset flowing from an unhealthy adherence to the simplistic and misleading central dogma.Eric Anderson
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
The alleged genetic similarities between humans and chimps (highly inflated and abused as they may be) are interesting observationally, but do not -- as the proponents would love to believe -- constitute conclusive evidence of either (i) descent, or (more importantly), (ii) that such descent resulted from purely natural and material processes. The intellectually laughable thing about people harping on the genetic similarities as though they underly some broader truth is that the alleged evolutionary process that led from a chimp-like ancestor to humans must account for the differences, not the similarities. There is no such account that even passes the laugh test, much less being scientifically and reasonably plausible. Furthermore, even if humans and chimps were 98% similar in DNA (or even 100% for that matter), all that observation would do is underscore the fact that the key differences are not in the DNA. There are many and obvious differences between humans and chimps. What evidence is there that the minor differences in DNA can account for all those differences? Answer: there is no decent evidence on that score. Finally, the humans-and-chimps-share-almost-all-their-DNA story tends to marginalize or conveniently sweep under the rug a host of other scientific realities: cellular mechanisms, cellular structures, and epigenetic information that acts on and utilizes the DNA. Yes, DNA is critical, but in some ways it is better thought of as a database of component parts, rather than the actual foundation of the organism that neo-Darwinian theory would like it to be. DNA provides the building blocks, but it doesn't itself do the building. There are two Home Depots within about 3 miles of my house in either direction. If I were to do an inventory I would probably find that they are about 98% similar in content. Yet that doesn't mean that a contractor who walks into one Home Depot is going to build a house that is 98% similar to the house built by a different contractor walking into another Home Depot (or even the very same Home Depot). The building blocks can be identical, down the last detail, but it doesn't mean the resulting structure will be identical, or even highly similar. The whole DNA=>Protein=>Organism dogma is simplistic to the point of being not just incomplete, but quite misleading. Indeed, given what we now know, the Central Dogma unfortunately often functions as a kind of anti-knowledge.Eric Anderson
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
wd400: You are an intelligent person and usually offer a fairly well reasoned approach from the "other side" than those here at UD, so I would say it is an asset to have you here as it makes us think and not just nod in agreement at most posts. Anyway, I would appeal to your intelligence on this and try to forget about the implications but rather where the science leads. You say:
In fact the protein coding genes are a good deal more similar to the chimpanzee genome than other regions, which is one good reason to think the majority of the genome is junk (diverging along at the neutral rate, rather than being slowed by natural selection).
But what if the real importance is not in the protein coding genes? This has been suggested for years and perhaps IDists have focused in the past too much on the actual protein encoding DNA. The very fact that we are SO similar to other organisms is obvious. If you take some quite important proteins ubiquitously expressed and necessary for essential cellular functions, more often than not the similarity is 100% (on amino acid level) with chimps/apes etc and very high with other species e.g. mice, closer to 100% than say 90% (at amino acid level). I know because I do these alignments all the time (am not too concerned with DNA sequence in the work I do). You know this well. It is used as support of evolution. However, it is clear that I am very different to a mouse. I have been accused of being short at a mere 5'8" however that is more of an extreme comparison. Humans and chimps I would argue are incredibly different, given the "rates" of mutation (neutral drift) and our supposed divergence time. What we now know more than ever, and certainly more than 15 years ago when we started to get draft human genomes (at insane sequencing costs compared to now), is that there is a huge diversity of non-coding RNAs that are transcribed from the genome, and these have very important roles in the regulation of these genes. So it is more likely that the non-protein regions of our genomes are what "make us" human in terms of what we can say, physically (not spiritually/soul presence, consciousness, etc). However it is common to do and say what you say - these non-protein regions are not as "important" and so diverge faster. But we must consider all explanations as a hypothesis that are sensible. Is it not a sensible hypothesis that theses regions are more diverse than our supposed ancestors because they are what make us different? This makes sense with a high degree of homology in the protein-coding regions, and acutally given the great similarity, it only really makes sense to think of the regulatory aspects of the genome and proteins to be the force at play in providing the differences we see between organisms. This seems to be supported by the many non-coding RNA molecules described of late - and continuing to be described and be discovered. We would be foolish to assume that all of these have been discovered and that there may not be a plethora more of RNA transcripts that play a functional role in the cell. The number can only go up. However evolutionists will hold back on agreeing with this, and downplay these findings as just another "small percent" of the genome to hold onto the junk DNA which is somewhat necessary to understand evolution and common descent as truth. This slight and mild form of deception is common among those defending evolution I find. Recently, the member "evolve" wrote a reply to me on another thread and claimed that with regards to common descent, we clearly evolved from something that had a tail, and he/she stated when we look for the genes that control tail formation/dvelopment, we still find them in our human genome! Strong evidence indeed. However, I challenged this only in the sense where I asked him/her to show/tell me what genes those were. I did not say that evolve was wrong, I asked him to tell me, as I honestly do not know what these genes are. I was under the impression they included the wnt/b-catenin pathway, in particular wnt3a. If that is the case, then his/her point is completely mis-guided and deceptive to a degree as it implies that these genes ONLY control tail development, and are present in humans but inactive. HOwever wnt3a has multiple important roles in human development in various cellular processes apart from tail development so if this is one of the genes he/she is talking about, it is not a favourable argument to use for common descent. In fact, it raises the point that a single protein or set of proteins are not enough information to define a phenotype or structure we see, and that it is "above" the DNA-->protein context that these structures arise. I.e. the regulation in specific ways which may even be apart from DNA (e.g. in membranes or electrical gradients, etc). I am still waiting for a reply and would love to know what those genes are - genuinely, I want to learn. Finally, I never understand the "homology" argument as strong evidence for common descent. Homology is what you would also expect from a common designer. Neither (in the gross sense) theory is supported more than the other from homology, therefore it is not a "strong" evidence for common descent. It would be odd, if we shared a common designer, if we were completely different at the level of the DNA. If you disagree, then fine - but please state what you would expect to see if we shared a common designer? Would you expect a different genetic code? A completely set of different proteins? Why would you expect that from a common designer? Therefore, something cannot be used as evidenence for one theory if it equally supports an opposing theory. Now there are certain aspects of homology that do (on the face of it) lend support to common descent, (I don't have time to discuss now) however homology in general does not support/provide strong evidence for common descent over common design.Dr JDD
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
Mapou, I'm sorry that I misinterpreted you. When you said "I see no scriptural evidence nor logical arguments to support the notion that God has a non-physical body", I thought you were interested in scriptural and/or logical arguments. As that is not so, I'll not bother you with further comments on this subject.anthropic
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
anthropic, I forgot to say this. Infinity, too, is the work of the devil. LOL.Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
anthropic, I disagree with your interpretations of Biblical scriptures. I disagree that the word 'spirit' has ever been defined in the scriptures. I disagree that the Bible is perfect, that it is 100% the word of God or that it has no errors and contradictions. I am not a Christian fundamentalist and the Bible is not an object of worship to me. Heck, I don't believe that God is either perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient. I think it's all ridiculous nonsense, the work of the devil. Sorry.Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
Mapou 45 John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." 1 John 4:12-13 "No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." 1 John 4:20 "If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." If God is a material physical being and is omnipresent, why don't we see Him? Why do the scriptures say no one (human, at least) has seen God? If one argues that God is a different type of matter than we cannot see, remember that the resurrected Jesus could be both seen and touched! If God is a physical being made from matter, where was He before matter was created in the Big Bang? If God is a physical being made from matter, what does it mean to say that the Trinity is three persons but one God? If God is a physical being made from matter, why did He repeatedly and emphatically tell the Israelites NOT to make an image of Him? What's the big deal? If God is a physical being made from matter, why do the scriptures say that He created the material universe out of nothing? Why not just use some of His own matter to do the job, since He is infinite? Not that this has a whole lot to do with ID, really. So now that I've had my say, Mapou, you can show me the error of my ways and I won't argue further. :)anthropic
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Mung @50, I was simply pointing out indirectly that you were not correct in claiming that no Christian believes that God has has a physical body. I do.Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
A chimp has between 20,000 and 25,000 genes by the latest estimate. But guess what? So does a human being. So if the margin of error regarding the actual number of genes in either species is 25%, isn't it rather strange that some people can be so confident that human and chimp genomes are 98% similar? Something smells fishy. The lady protests way too much, IMO, especially since similarity between the two does not give them a leg to stand on.Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
Mung, I've no idea what you are trying say. I'm not banning anyone else from talking about religion. I just said I don't have anything to say about the OP.wd400
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
Mapou:
What do you mean so?
I mean that you've merely expressed an opinion. I mean that nothing follows from what you've sad. Mapou:
I see no scriptural evidence nor logical arguments to support the notion that God has a non-physical body.
And from this observation what is your conclusion? That God must have a physical body? How so?Mung
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply