Evidence of Human Common Ancestry

[Sashatheman]

Hello people.

 

I have a question regarding telomeres.

 

The evidence for the chromosomes fusing is undeniable.

And usually a creationists will just try to avoid the topic.

However i heard a creationist, make a claim that yes humans did have 24 pairs of chromosomes when God created them, but due to the fall or some other reason they fused. "After all it's a common design".

 

This seems like post hoc rationalising, but is there anything that can be said to refute that. If we are only talking about the Chromosome 2 and telomeres etc. I don't want to use ERVs to refute this, they are good pieces of evidence on their own.

 

Also when drawing those little diagrams , am i right when i draw a normal chromosome, that it looks like this:

 

pre-telomere: '~'

telomere: '='

genes: '#'

centromere: '&'

 

~~~~~~=======#######&######=======~~~~~~

[lucaspa]

However i heard a creationist, make a claim that yes humans did have 24 pairs of chromosomes when God created them, but due to the fall or some other reason they fused. "After all it's a common design".

 

This seems like post hoc rationalising, but is there anything that can be said to refute that.

 

Also when drawing those little diagrams , am i right when i draw a normal chromosome, that it looks like this:

 

pre-telomere: '~'

telomere: '='

genes: '#'

centromere: '&'

 

~~~~~~=======#######&######=======~~~~~~

 

1. Pretty much you are correct in the general drawing of a chromosome. Chromosome #2 for humans doesn't follow this pattern. Here is a good source: http://learning.swc.hccs.edu/members/david.schwartz/humanandapechromosomes

 

"Human chromosome #2 has an inactive centromere exactly where the active chimp centromere is positioned, and at the human centromere, DNA sequencing has shown the order pre-telomere, telomere, telomere, pre-telomere; exactly what would be predicted by a head to head fusion of two chromosomes into one. "

 

2. This is an ad hoc hypothesis: it's purpose is to keep the main hypothesis -- special and separate manufacture of humans and chimps -- from being falsified by the hypothesis the our 23 pairs comes from fusion of 2 chromosomes in the 24 pairs in chimps. The person is conceding that our 23 comes from fusion of 2 chromosomes, but instead of the fusion resulting during evolution, the ad hoc hypothesis is that it is due to the Fall. IOW, the fusion is conceded, but the cause is different.

 

That's a very difficult ad hoc hypothesis to refute scientifically, because how do you refute "the Fall" by science and what can happen via such a "Fall"? Now, the quote above shows that chromosome #2 has an inactive centromere where the chimp has an active one. You can try to play the "odds" game against the creationist and ask what the odds are that the human genome would correspond so closely to the chimp genome, including the fused chromosome! The creationist is going to reply "similar design", but the reply is: if chimps and humans are so very different and are very different animals (as creationism says), then where is the similarity of design? If there is such a "similarity of design", then chimps and humans aren't that different. IOW, the creationist ad hoc hypothesis puts him/her on the horns of a dilemma.

 

If you want to step away from science and argue on the creationist's turf -- theology -- then there is a more powerful argument. Go to Genesis 3 and read carefully the punishments meted out for Adam and Eve's transgressions. They are very specific and very limited. If the creationist is taking the Bible literally, then to be consistent the creationist can't go beyond the literal Bible. There is no mention of "fused chromosomes" or any other genetic alteration in either Adam or Eve. If we can add this to the Bible, then what is to stop us from adding anything we want. Perhaps we can add that, when Jesus said "Let the little children come unto me" he then went off and molested them! What would stop us if the rules for making things up to add to the Bible are suspended? The creationist has put himself on the horns of a theological dilemma: wanting to asset the absolute authority of scripture, she is actually destroying that authority.

 

Let us know how it turns out.

 

BTW, there are other very solid refutations of the "similarity of design" argument if you are interested.

[ydoaPs]

lucaspa, the fused chromosome is what allows sin. Before eating the forbidden fruit, mankind had no sin and no fused chromosomes. The forbidden fruit fused the chromosomes and made Adam and Eve sinful. That explains scientifically how we are all sinners!

[lucaspa]

lucaspa, the fused chromosome is what allows sin. Before eating the forbidden fruit, mankind had no sin and no fused chromosomes. The forbidden fruit fused the chromosomes and made Adam and Eve sinful. That explains scientifically how we are all sinners!

 

ROFL! The problem with this is that Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit. So they were sinning before the fruit had a chance to fuse the chromosomes!

 

However, on a more serious note, natural selection does explain the human tendency to sin. Think about it. Natural selection can only be selfish. So what is sin? Selfishness. Doing what we want instead of what Yahweh wants or what is good for our fellow humans. That's why Adam and Eve disobeyed Yahweh to eat the fruit: supposed benefits to them (selfishness). Humans are sinners as a result of the very process that Yahweh used to create us (assuming you believe in Yahweh).

 

So evolution provides an answer to one of the major puzzles of theology. Ironic, isn't it? Of course, it is ironic that, historically, evolution was regarded in the late 1800s as rescuing Yahweh from Special Creation/ID.

[SamCogar]

By noting that the required intelligence requires a large and complex brain in order to contemplate abstract thought. Dogs don't have the required brain.

 

------

 

Rhe only reason we even consider that babies have souls is because, as adults, we have the ability to formulate and communicate (verbalize) abstract thought. Dogs don't have that ability as adults. Therefore you have no means of determining whether dogs have souls.

 

lucaspa, I just joined this Forum today and was reading through this thread and noted that you are pretty adament that dogs are not capable of abstract thought.

 

So, unless you are using a different definition than this one, to wit:

 

abstract thought - thinking that is coherent and logical

 

I will have to disagree with you.

 

GEEEZE, dogs even have dreams ya know.

 

And phooey on your "large and complex brain" as a requirement for my posted definition of "abstract thought", ....... you should read up on crows and their "bird brains".

 

cheers

[Sayonara]

So, unless you are using a different definition than this one, to wit:

 

abstract thought - thinking that is coherent and logical

 

I will have to disagree with you.

 

That's not abstract thought - coherence and logical structure may well be employed, but they do not characterise it. The defining characteristic of abstraction is the distancing of concepts from objects.

 

Be aware that a thesaurus or dictionary is not a technical reference for [insert topic here].

[SamCogar]

That's not abstract thought - coherence and logical structure may well be employed, but they do not characterise it. The defining characteristic of abstraction is the distancing of concepts from objects.

 

Well now, if you are going to "limit it" to that definition, ....... speaking on behalf of the dog or a crow, ......... you do not know that, ..... do you?

[insane_alien]

Sam, things in science have to be well defined and limited to one definition. if they are not things get needlessly complicated extremely fast as it can be difficult to distinguish which meaning is intended.

[Sayonara]

Well now, if you are going to "limit it" to that definition, ....... speaking on behalf of the dog or a crow, ......... you do not know that, ..... do you?

So your approach is to pick a word and then glue it to the meaning you want it to have. Good work! See, what I did there was say "good", but contrary to any reasonable expectations you might have had, I have arbitrarily redefined it to mean "crap".

 

If you are talking about abstract thought in terms of behavioural or cognitive psychology you need to use the definitions that are considered to be conventional in that field. Otherwise you cannot have a meaningful exchange.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa, I just joined this Forum today and was reading through this thread and noted that you are pretty adament that dogs are not capable of abstract thought.

 

So, unless you are using a different definition than this one, to wit:

 

abstract thought - thinking that is coherent and logical

 

I will have to disagree with you.

 

See Sayonara. You didn't post a source for your definition but it seems you got it here: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn. This uses a non-standard definition of "abstract". "1 a: disassociated from any specific instance " Merriam-Webster

 

As I have seen the term used in scientific papers, abstract thought involves the use of symbols and concepts that don't exist in a concrete form or are dissociated from a concrete form. "soul" is an example, which is what we were talking about in the post you quoted me from. "soul" is not any specific instance and is dissociated from anything physical.

 

Coherent and logical thinking can, and often does, involve specific instances.

 

GEEEZE, dogs even have dreams ya know.

 

They appear to in that they have REM sleep. However, without the ability to communicate, you don't know whether those dreams involve concrete sense impressions or the more symbolic, abstract dreams that humans have.

 

you should read up on crows and their "bird brains".

 

I have. They are capable of quite impressive problem solving skills. That still doesn't translate to abstract thought. Now octupi, OTOH, do seem capable of the abstract concept "play". But then they have pretty complex brains.

[SamCogar]

Sam, things in science have to be well defined and limited to one definition. if they are not things get needlessly complicated extremely fast as it can be difficult to distinguish which meaning is intended.

 

Now Alien, surely you don't believe that, ......... do you? I wasa thinking that science itself did the defining and we just try to do the understanding.

 

Of course, anyone applying said would surely have "control" of the conversation/discussion, ...... right.

 

Just joshing, I know what you are saying. Alien, I am not a “specialist” in any discipline, ….. but I am also not unfamiliar with the different Sciences. I am a stickler for truths and facts ……. and my wild imagination, reasoning’s and logical deductions will surely bedazzle and/or confuse at times.

 

Alien, I checked the definition of “abstract thought” before I posted because being a “newbie” I didn’t want to “jump in” and then get slapped in the ole snotlocker for making stupid statements. Anyway, I did not find a definition that negated what I was going to post.

 

Alien, I was only questioning the accusation that “dogs were incapable of abstract thought” because no one knows for sure what any one dog is capable of "thinking of" ........ anymore than I know what you are capable of thinking of or vice versa. But I am sure if I remain a member of this forum we will both learn some things each is capable of.

 

Just as I have learned a couple things that dogs, crows, horses, etc. …. are capable of thinking of and which I associate with abstract thought. That excludes Basset Hounds because the one I knew of was incapable of thinking.

 

Remind me to tell you about a horse I once owned.

 

cheers

 

So your approach is to pick a word and then glue it to the meaning you want it to have. Good work! See, what I did there was say "good", but contrary to any reasonable expectations you might have had, I have arbitrarily redefined it to mean "crap".

 

HA, are you trying to impress me, .... or what? In the case under discussion, ..... it matters little what definition is "picked" because you can not exclude dogs of being capable of "abstract thinking" based solely on "brain size". Maybe on "bias", but not on brain size.

 

GEEEZUS, are there not humans that are incapable of abstract thinking?

 

If you are talking about abstract thought in terms of behavioural or cognitive psychology you need to use the definitions that are considered to be conventional in that field. Otherwise you cannot have a meaningful exchange.

 

Sayonara, I did not realize this thread was dealing with or limited to "behavioural or cognitive psychology" comments.

 

But you comment just "ads insult to injury" per say, ..... because psychologists don't even understand how they themselves "think" ...... while trying to convince others that they know how they "think".

 

cheers

 

Well now, I didn't mean to "merge multiple posts".

 

Did I somehow do it or is it a "glitch" in the Forum software?

 

I'll see if it does it again.

[Sayonara]

HA, are you trying to impress me, .... or what? In the case under discussion, ..... it matters little what definition is "picked" because you can not exclude dogs of being capable of "abstract thinking" based solely on "brain size". Maybe on "bias", but not on brain size.

It still matters, because if we use different definitions in the same discussion, then we are talking about different things.

 

GEEEZUS, are there not humans that are incapable of abstract thinking?

Quite possibly. Probably there are some who have the facility but fail to consciously engage it.

 

Sayonara, I did not realize this thread was dealing with or limited to "behavioural or cognitive psychology" comments.

It is of course not limited to that area. But when you responded to Lucaspa you were replying to the words "by noting that the required intelligence requires a large and complex brain in order to contemplate abstract thought. Dogs don't have the required brain", which clearly do reflect consideration of that (or similar) topic.

 

But you comment just "ads insult to injury" per say, ..... because psychologists don't even understand how they themselves "think" ...... while trying to convince others that they know how they "think".

It's per se, Latin for "by itself". Not a criticism, just so you know what you are saying

 

Whether or not psychologists understand how they themselves think is no basis for discarding or misusing the descriptive framework which they and others use in their area of expertise.

 

Well now, I didn't mean to "merge multiple posts".

Did I somehow do it or is it a "glitch" in the Forum software?

It's a feature of the forums. Since a few months ago, any consecutive posts made in a thread by the same user are automatically merged, and the "new post" marker updated. It helps with spam control and makes things generally more tidy.

[SamCogar]

It's per se, Latin for "by itself". Not a criticism, just so you know what you are saying

 

No problem Sayonara, but you will sure have fun if you are going to be correcting my word usage. I "fire for effect" and am too old to worry about it ..... and don't have an airplane to catch. I attribute it to my reverting back to my Hillbilly heritage here in WV and posting on a newspaper Forum. They would give me ell for usin big ole fancy words because they couldn't find them in their dictionary or spellchecker.

 

You don't know how happy I was to find this Forum with hopes of being able to discuss subjects intelligently ....... instead of opinionally.

 

Whether or not psychologists understand how they themselves think is no basis for discarding or misusing the descriptive framework which they and others use in their area of expertise.

 

And therein lies the problem.

 

It's a feature of the forums. Since a few months ago, any consecutive posts made in a thread by the same user are automatically merged, and the "new post" marker updated. It helps with spam control and makes things generally more tidy.

 

Thanks Sayonara, as an old computer Dinosaur I figured (see, I was about to key 'figgered' ) as much ... and posted the 3rd one.

 

And saved my reply to Lucas for this morning and will just tack it on the bottom of this one. You will surely have fun with it. :-)

 

 

======== Reply to Lucas ===================================

 

 

Originally Posted by SamCogar

lucaspa, I just joined this Forum today and was reading through this thread and noted that you are pretty adament that dogs are not capable of abstract thought.

 

So, unless you are using a different definition than this one, to wit:

 

abstract thought - thinking that is coherent and logical

 

I will have to disagree with you.

 

See Sayonara. You didn't post a source for your definition but it seems you got it here: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn. This uses a non-standard definition of "abstract". "1 a: disassociated from any specific instance " Merriam-Webster

 

As I have seen the term used in scientific papers, abstract thought involves the use of symbols and concepts that don't exist in a concrete form or are dissociated from a concrete form. "soul" is an example, which is what we were talking about in the post you quoted me from. "soul" is not any specific instance and is dissociated from anything physical.

 

Coherent and logical thinking can, and often does, involve specific instances.

 

No and No. ..... Not Sayonara …… and not there, but here:

 

Definitions of abstract thought on the Web:

 

reasoning: thinking that is coherent and logical

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Abstraction is the process of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract thought

 

SOURCE

 

Lucaspa, I ignored the comments about “soul” because I never address religion thoughts as being related in any way whatsoever to science. But now the Flying Spaghetti Monster ……..

 

Originally Posted by SamCogar

GEEEZE, dogs even have dreams ya know.

 

They appear to in that they have REM sleep. However, without the ability to communicate, you don't know whether those dreams involve concrete sense impressions or the more symbolic, abstract dreams that humans have.

 

Lucas, in my opinion, REM sleep is nothing more that a “normal reaction” by the eyes as a result of receiving “repositioning instructions” from the subconscious mind. The eye has two basic functions, ….. point and focus on “command”, …… and transmit “streaming video” to the subconscious mind. Thus, in your “dreams” ….. you “see” the same as you do when you are awake: here n’ there, …. near n’ far, …. up n’ down, …. back n’ forth ….. and those “movements” get transmitted to the muscles controlling the eyes.

 

And dreams, …… that is another good topic.

 

Lucas, I have watched dogs lying on their side on the floor sound asleep nice and peaceful like ….. when all of a sudden they will make a couple little “woofs”, their nose will twitch and they will be “running in place” with all 4 legs justa gettin it and after several more louder “barks” it all ceases and they continue sleeping quietly.

 

Now you can call it whatever you want but I’ll call it “hot on the trail” of that rabbit it was dreaming about catching

 

Originally Posted by SamCogar

you should read up on crows and their "bird brains".

 

I have. They are capable of quite impressive problem solving skills. That still doesn't translate to abstract thought. Now octupi, OTOH, do seem capable of the abstract concept "play". But then they have pretty complex brains.

 

Right on, I watched the Documentary on the “mimic” octopus.

 

Lucas, I could tell you “real life” stories for a couple hours about such things.

 

Like the time I watched 3 spike buck deer “bug” my beef cows by jumping over the fence, prance around among them, jump back across the fence and watch what the cows would do. Then do it again, ….. and again (3 times) before they decided they had enough fun, … I guess, and left.

 

Or that wild rabbit that use to pester the hell out of my neighbor’s Beagle by slipping under the fence that enclosed the backyard, search ole Trig out, even go right up to his “doggy door” if necessary and ….. “YEOOOOOOW” the race was on. Down through the garden, round the garage, here n’ there and ole Trig a bugling all the time. And when that rabbit got tired of playing it would slip back under the fence a couple feet, turn around and sit there watching ole Trig a barking n’ a badlooking him.

 

That’s enough for now Lucas, next time I might tell you about my step-daughter’s horse when she (the mare) got a nose-full of porcupine quills. That one made a "believer" out of me.

 

cheers

[Sayonara]

No problem Sayonara, but you will sure have fun if you are going to be correcting my word usage.

Ha, not intending to mark your posts for spelling and grammar at all

 

And therein lies the problem.

I think maybe you misinterpret slightly. We may not fully understand the brain mechanisms behind abstract thought (and I use "may not" there because I honestly don't know how well it is understood; not my field), but as long as we all subscribe to the same definition then we can discuss it in a consistent manner. It's the same for any technical term in any given field.

 

If someone comes along and uses a different definition in the discussion, then they are referring to a different mechanism and/or effects. Which essentially means a different discussion. This can be particularly problematic in an academic discussion because if the variance in definitions is not immediately noticeable, one runs the risk of attracting fallacy accusations.

[SamCogar]

Originally Posted by SamCogar

No problem Sayonara, but you will sure have fun if you are going to be correcting my word usage.

 

Ha, not intending to mark your posts for spelling and grammar at all

 

Well now, …… you sure fooled me.

 

Originally Posted by SamCogar

And therein lies the problem.

 

I think maybe you misinterpret slightly. We may not fully understand the brain mechanisms behind abstract thought (and I use "may not" there because I honestly don't know how well it is understood; not my field), but as long as we all subscribe to the same definition then we can discuss it in a consistent manner. It's the same for any technical term in any given field.

 

And “DUH”, you are telling me I might have misinterpreted something!

 

Sayonara, one of my most favorite topics is "brain, brain stem and spinal cord mechanisms" which I have thought long and hard about for years and years. Not the "physical" parts, .... but how they are "programmed" via our "senses" (sight, smell, etc.) to perform the functions they perform, both mental and mechanical in nature.

 

If someone comes along and uses a different definition in the discussion, then they are referring to a different mechanism and/or effects. Which essentially means a different discussion. This can be particularly problematic in an academic discussion because if the variance in definitions is not immediately noticeable, one runs the risk of attracting fallacy accusations.

 

Sayonara, I do not need or require a “Science Lesson” of such, …… but maybe a “Forum Lesson” for this particular Forum is advised.

 

Sayonara, I scanned back over this “thread” to see what exactly prompted me to post my comment. Below you will see conjoined “posts” that triggered my reaction. To wit:

 

Originally Posted by djmacarro

 

I believe everything animal has a soul but different intelligences to understand their soul. So a dog has a soul but won't understand it but intelligent creatures such as other Great Apes and probably delfines understand to an extent' date=' if not as much as Humans [b']what it means "to be" and have a concept of self[/b].

 

How do you know that a dog doesn't have the intelligence to understand its own soul? You and I are not dogs.

 

How do you or djmacarro know dogs have souls to begin with? How do we objectively and intersubjectively identify a soul?

 

Part of our discussion of soul is based upon the ability to conceive and verbalize abstract thoughts. Dogs certainly don't have the ability to verbalize. If the ability to have abstract thoughts is dependent on brain size (and much evidence suggests it is), then dogs don't have large enough brains.

 

Sayonara, I considered Hypertilly’s reply a logical statement. And I didn’t “read into it” that he/she was implying that dogs “have souls” or “thought that dogs have souls”, but only the fact that us humans are not dogs and can not converse with dogs so therefore we don’t know what all they think about.

 

But I do know they “think”, ……. and with “reasoning” that is coherent and logical. And dogs also have the ability to “verbalize” (express: articulate; either verbally or with a cry, shout, or noise;), …… but not via human speech. But I ignored Lucas’s statement on said, but not his “disclaimer” based on “brain size”.

 

Sayonara, I guess it just “concerned me” that Lucas cited two (2), ….. in my learned opinion, …. untruths, ….. regardless of what his “intent” for doing said was.

 

To me, that was akin to ….. “citing the Bible ….. to prove the literal truth of the Bible”.

 

Now when I looked back over this “thread” I also found the following which I probably should have paid closer attention to ...... and because the second paragraph therein I wholeheartedly agree with, to wit:

 

(Post #92)

 

Originally Posted by Sayonara³

This thread has lost its way somewhat.

 

Somewhat. However, whenever areas of science that are in conflict with creationism are discussed, I submit the forum needs to allow space to discuss the interaction of science and religion. You have tried to shove these discussions off to other boards or close them entirely Sayonara, you can't treat or limit science to simply a collection of facts. Collecting facts are the most boring and trivial part of science.

 

What is really important in science is formulating and evaluating hypotheses/theories. This is the exciting part of science. And whenever this is done, some theories are going to be extrapolated beyond science to other areas of our lives. ...... etc., etc.

 

Sam, aka: “the Devil’s Advocate”

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: "See Sayonara. You didn't post a source for your definition but it seems you got it here: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn. This uses a non-standard definition of "abstract". "1 a: disassociated from any specific instance " Merriam-Webster"

 

 

No and No. ..... Not Sayonara …… and not there, but here:

Definitions of abstract thought on the Web:

 

reasoning: thinking that is coherent and logical

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Abstraction is the process of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract thought

 

1. When I said "see Sayonara" I meant that he gave a good answer to your previous post.

 

2. Did you stop and notice that the website I gave for the definition of "abstract" was exactly the website you gave? So, yes, "there"!

 

3. You can't use wikipedia as a source in a serious discussion. It is not referreed and people can put into it whatever they like. There is no way to ensure that what is in Wiki is accurate. That's why I used Merriam-Webster.

 

Lucaspa, I ignored the comments about “soul” because I never address religion thoughts as being related in any way whatsoever to science.

 

But in doing so you missed the context of my comments. The thread had already been taken out of science by the poster who said "I believe all animals have souls ..."

 

What you specifically objected to was what you considered denigration of the intelligence of dogs.

 

Lucas, in my opinion, REM sleep is nothing more that a “normal reaction” by the eyes as a result of receiving “repositioning instructions” from the subconscious mind.

 

If that is the case, then you have destroyed the only basis for your claim that dogs dream! Sam, you need to remember what the claims were. It was your claim that dogs dream: "GEEEZE, dogs even have dreams ya know."

 

Now you have just destroyed 1) your own claim and with it 2) a major basis for your claim of canine intelligence! Thank you for backing my position and destroying yours, but in the future you might want to keep track of what you are doing a bit better.

 

Lucas, I have watched dogs lying on their side on the floor sound asleep nice and peaceful like ….. when all of a sudden they will make a couple little “woofs”, their nose will twitch and they will be “running in place” with all 4 legs justa gettin it and after several more louder “barks” it all ceases and they continue sleeping quietly.

 

Now you can call it whatever you want but I’ll call it “hot on the trail” of that rabbit it was dreaming about catching

 

So how do you know those are "dreams"? Yes, you "call" it, but this is a science forum. What data do you have to back your opinion? I at least was relating the correlation between REM sleep and dreams in humans --which data you deny!

 

So on one hand you deny the considerable scientific data correlating REM sleep and dreaming but on the other hand you "call it" without any data whatsoever! Science isn't about stating your opinon as "fact", but about reaching logical conclusions from the data and recognizing when the data doesn't allow conclusions.

 

Right on, I watched the Documentary on the “mimic” octopus.

 

However, that still doesn't get us anywhere nearer answering the question whether dogs are capable of abstract thought.

 

How do any of your stories demonstrate abstract thought in the animals you mention? None of them even particularly represent "play". They could equally well test the reactions of other animals in their environment. The deer are checking whether the cows are dangerous and will chase them. Not abstract, but concrete thought.

 

None of the stories had anything to do with dogs.

[foursixand2]

I am in seminary and I believe in both, original life made by God and controled evolution by his divine means.

 

there is so much i would like to say to that, but i just sigh and refrain, because i know it is probably a waste of breath. Bur i will in brief detail recount my journey away from God, perhaps it will strike curiosity in this, or some theist, to explore similar avenues.

 

i feel i owe people, who think like this some sympathy, because of my background. I was raised christian, and thus creationist. I always had interest in science, and i think i owe more to certain teachers than myself, for my continued interest. Probably particularly a teacher i had in seventh grade who took interest in me because i always got the second highest scores on tests (and the other kid actually studied). Not that seventh grade is something to brag about now, but it was my activity there, and the teacher who recognized my ability that made the distinction in my mind that this was something i had some natural affinity to that i should continue to cultivate.

 

In my next year of school i learned about natural selection, realized it made a damn lot of sense, had the ability to explain life that rendered God unnecessary. At that time the revelation only scared me, made me feel empty and without purpose or meaning, so i wrote it off as an idea implanted by the devil to cause despair.

 

Then in eleventh grade i checked out two books from the city library : A River Out of Eden and Unweaving the Rainbow. I couldn't put them down. I was more inspired by the things i learned, than by anything from my religious life before. That moment is so far the most profound and 'spiritually' moving experience of my life.

 

A couple quotes explain this phenomenon better than i can. First, the quote of my signature from Douglas Adams, and this one from Carl Sagan : In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.”

 

If you see the logic of evolution, you have one foot in the door, and all i can do is hope you will continue to honestly search for the truth, and not be afraid to do that. Just for a few moments, indulge in imagining the world outside the box of the superstitions of your parents. But if im wrong and there is a God, you shouldn't feel threatened to experiment, you'll always find your way back to the truth.

[SamCogar]

1. When I said "see Sayonara" I meant that he gave a good answer to your previous post.

 

YUP, I thought so too. Only problem was, I wasn’t using a different definition. I just applied it to something that apparently no one had ever considered before.

 

2. Did you stop and notice that the website I gave for the definition of "abstract" was exactly the website you gave? So, yes, "there"!

 

No I didn’t, my bad. When replying to your "See Sayonara. You didn't ..…" remark I just included another “no” and cited one of those sources.

 

Lucas, I Googled “abstract thought” and checked the context of at least 3 url's for said definitions to CMA before I posted and not in any of them did I read a disclaimer stating …… “except in the case of a dog”.

 

3. You can't use wikipedia as a source in a serious discussion. It is not referreed and people can put into it whatever they like. There is no way to ensure that what is in Wiki is accurate. That's why I used Merriam-Webster.

 

The hell you say. Trying to “pull rank on me”, huh, … that won’t work. Like my College Physics Instructor was always saying when he was shortchanged on supplies he needed, ….. “Rank before Frank.”

 

Lucas, there is no problem citing a Wiki source as long as it agrees with other sources, and especially as long as one agree with it them self. Bottom line is, they damn well better be able to support and/or justify their claim.

 

A Merriam-Webster source is not “cast in stone” ya know, ….. they add, revise and modify said definitions bout every year. Which reminds of the story I heard about someone asking “the authority” which of two (2) pronunciations of “Elizabethan” (beeth -beth) was correct. Supposedly his answer was, … “Which do you prefer, ..... I’ll see that it is changed.”

 

Lucas, I am an “original thinker”, … not a “mimic”, …. that is relegated and conditioned to only believing and citing “authorized sources” from “selected experts”, no matter how long the “alphabet” is following their printed name. And neither was this fellow who was cited in a “post” in this Forum.

 

So Lucas, be careful when you discredit what I post based solely on the “source of my source”, ….. or the fact that it is in disagreement with an “authorized source”. Or that you are unable to find a “verifiable source” for said …….. because I just might be the “only source”.

 

Originally Posted by SamCogar

Lucaspa, I ignored the comments about “soul” because I never address religion thoughts as being related in any way whatsoever to science.

 

But in doing so you missed the context of my comments. The thread had already been taken out of science by the poster who said "I believe all animals have souls ..."

 

What you specifically objected to was what you considered denigration of the intelligence of dogs.

 

Lucas, you are absolutely right in what I objected to. And no, I did not “miss the context” of your comments, I just thought that they were unprofessional. And what concerned me the most was the possibility that 10, 100, 500 other persons who are “just learning” would read said post and 50%+- just might accept and/or believe them as “fact”.

 

Originally Posted by SamCogar

Lucas, in my opinion, REM sleep is nothing more that a “normal reaction” by the eyes as a result of receiving “repositioning instructions” from the subconscious mind.

 

If that is the case, then you have destroyed the only basis for your claim that dogs dream! Sam, you need to remember what the claims were. It was your claim that dogs dream: "GEEEZE, dogs even have dreams ya know."

 

Now you have just destroyed 1) your own claim and with it 2) a major basis for your claim of canine intelligence! Thank you for backing my position and destroying yours, but in the future you might want to keep track of what you are doing a bit better.

 

You wish, Lucas, you wish, ….. but those wishes are only in your wildest dreams.

 

I will apologize for not using quote marks, to wit, “REM sleep” or including the word “during”, to wit: “REM during sleep”. GEEEZE, even you “professionals” never state it as being “REM during sleep” ….. and herein you are criticizing me for not doing it. Huuummm, “rank before Sam”, huh?

 

Originally Posted by SamCogar

Lucas, I have watched dogs lying on their side on the floor sound asleep …………………. .

 

Now you can call it whatever you want but I’ll call it “hot on the trail” of that rabbit it was dreaming about catching.

 

So how do you know those are "dreams"? Yes, you "call" it, but this is a science forum. What data do you have to back your opinion? I at least was relating the correlation between REM sleep and dreams in humans – which data you deny!

 

PHOOEY, I denied no such thing. I defined REM as to what it exactly was, to wit:

 

“REM sleep is nothing more that a “normal reaction” by the eyes as a result of receiving “repositioning instructions” from the subconscious mind.”

 

GEEEZE, that is the source for all said instructions, asleep or awake.

 

And I was relating the correlation between “REM sleep and dreams in humans” ….. and ….. “REM sleep and dreams in dogs”, which I believe is an accepted scientific practice in evolutionary biology.

 

And Lucas, my data was derived from “direct observations” and correlating the two (2) events, human dreams – canine dreams: sleep walking vrs. sleep running, …. sleep talking vrs. sleep barking, … sleep punching your spouse in the snotlocker vrs. sleep biting a rabbit in der arse.

 

Which was more scientifically creditable than your data, to wit:

 

(Post# 110) They appear to in that they have REM sleep. However, without the ability to communicate, you don't know whether those dreams involve concrete sense impressions or the more symbolic, abstract dreams that humans have.

 

Lucas, in that you agree dogs “appear to” have REM during sleep, ……. why do you discredit their ability to have “abstract dreams” when all the “observational data” suggests that they do?

 

So on one hand you deny the considerable scientific data correlating REM sleep and dreaming but on the other hand you "call it" without any data whatsoever! ……. Piffle.

 

Science isn't about stating your opinon as "fact", but about reaching logical conclusions from the data and recognizing when the data doesn't allow conclusions.

 

Lucas, you forgot to include ….. “and/or recognizing when the data DOES allow conclusions”.

 

Lucas, I have been pretty good at “reaching logical conclusions” all of my life. Good enough to be hired as a Logical Designer of computers and their peripherals back in 63’ …. even though I knew nothing about or had an EE Degree. And good enough to survive 20+ years in that industry with “new jobs” that came looking for me rather than me looking for “new jobs”.

 

And I did not state the above to impress you, …….. but only to remind you to …… “criticize or attack the message, …… but not the messenger”, …. and we will probably get along just fine.

 

How do any of your stories demonstrate abstract thought in the animals you mention? None of them even particularly represent "play". They could equally well test the reactions of other animals in their environment. The deer are checking whether the cows are dangerous and will chase them. Not abstract, but concrete thought.

 

Again, Piffle. You sure don’t know much about animals, do you.

 

And "play", ..... how about the "wilderness clowns".

 

Lucas, with about 100 acres fenced in those deer didn’t have to “jump back across the fence” each time to do their “checking”, ….. now did they? But being they did, ….. do ya pose they knew there was a reason that fence was there, ….. or that they knew that none of those cows would jump the fence and/or charge right through it? Most cows can do both, ya know, …. iffen they decide to.

 

None of the stories had anything to do with dogs.

 

Well Lucas, I was about to cite you a "dog story" but that other post was getting quite long, like this one is. And besides, there are thousands of “such stories” told by dog owners that the media reports, ….. tells you about. But I got a couple “good ones” that I experienced first hand …. and will tell you if you are interested. Just say so and I will do that in a new post.

 

Cheers, …. SC

[lucaspa]

there is so much i would like to say to that, but i just sigh and refrain, because i know it is probably a waste of breath. Bur i will in brief detail recount my journey away from God, perhaps it will strike curiosity in this, or some theist, to explore similar avenues.

 

And I submit that this is as inappropriate in a science forum as those promoting science as proving God exists.

 

Science is agnostic. By its legitimate methods, science cannot comment on the issue of God's superintendence over nature. As scientists, we neither affirm nor deny it; we can't comment. (from a quote by Gould).

 

To quote Eugenie Scott, Ph.D., head of the National Center for Science Education: "for a nonreligious professor to interject his own philosophy into the classroom in this manner is as offensive as it would be for a fundamentalist professor to pass off his philosophy as science." Eugenie Scott in the essay Creationism in The Flight from Science and Reason, New York Academy of Sciences, volume 775, 1995, pg 519.

 

I was raised christian, and thus creationist.

 

That does not follow. Most Christians are not creationists. Some Christians are creationist, just as some scientists are atheist. But being Christian does not mean you are a creationist anymore than being a scientist means you are atheist.

 

In my next year of school i learned about natural selection, realized it made a damn lot of sense, had the ability to explain life that rendered God unnecessary.

 

I'm afraid it doesn't. Natural selection removes an argument for God as a valid argument: the Argument from Design. Natural selection means that God does not have to directly manufacture each species, but it certainly does not mean that God is not necessary. I'm afraid you misunderstood the science.

 

Carl Sagan : In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.”

 

I'm afraid Carl lied. Most of Christianity reacted the way Carl described. Carl Sagan is an example of someone who mistakenly tried to make his faith into a conclusion of science. Dawkins is another. In that regard, they warp science as badly, or worse, than any creationist.

 

If you see the logic of evolution, you have one foot in the door, and all i can do is hope you will continue to honestly search for the truth, and not be afraid to do that. Just for a few moments, indulge in imagining the world outside the box of the superstitions of your parents.

 

Ah, one of the myths of militant atheism: people only believe because their parents said so! You have a poor opinion of scientists, don't you? You trust them to imagine the "world outside the box" to make their discoveries, but then don't trust them to keep thinking "outside the box" when it comes to deity. At least 40% of scientists are theists by a very conservative definition. Provine tried to rationalize this contrary bit of data to the myth by saying that scientists "checked their brains at the door" when it comes to religion. I submit that militant atheists are the ones that check their brains at the door.

 

Djamarrco's position is exactly that of Charles Darwin in Origin of Species. Darwin had God directly manufacturing life by had species originate by the secondary cause of evolution by natural selection:

 

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

 

Now, "secondary cause" is a religious concept that has been forgotten by modern day creationists. You apparently were never taught it. Many theists look for "gaps" to insert God into. Djamarrco did so. However, both science and theology has advanced since Darwin's day. There are secondary causes -- chemistry -- to get life from non-life. And theologians realize that god-of-the-gaps theology is non-Christian:

 

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenomana in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe." Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

 

Four, I don't care that you went from theist to atheist. However, you should care that you did so for invalid reasons. You want to look for the valid reasons for believing deity does not exist. Trying to cite science as a valid reasons means that it is necessary to defend science from that abuse. Science is not a way to convert people to your faith.

[Sayonara]

Well now, …… you sure fooled me.

Really? Because my comment referred to posts plural, and I have corrected one term in one post so far. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill; that one phrase is a common error and it just happens to be one of my bug bears. If you don't like being corrected then I apologise for any discomfort.

 

And “DUH”, you are telling me I might have misinterpreted something!

Yes. I was referring to the reasons behind the use of mutually accepted, conventional terminologies. The specific details of the subject matter are utterly irrelevant.

 

Sayonara, one of my most favorite topics is "brain, brain stem and spinal cord mechanisms" which I have thought long and hard about for years and years.

I am glad to hear you are studious (goodness knows we like having members with such inclinations!) but you have to admit that this on its own does not necessarily mean that you have reached any useful conclusions. Or conclusions that will assist in this discussion, to be more precise.

 

Not the "physical" parts, .... but how they are "programmed" via our "senses" (sight, smell, etc.) to perform the functions they perform, both mental and mechanical in nature.

Interesting. Are you not of the opinion that structure and function go hand-in-hand?

 

Sayonara, I do not need or require a “Science Lesson” of such, …… but maybe a “Forum Lesson” for this particular Forum is advised.

I do not advocate a "science lesson", but I maintain that you need to be careful about the precise details of what you say. In the section of my post you replied to, I warned that a strawman accusation could result from certain means of approaching a topic - having read my post you then went on to make a comment that could have been called as a strawman (the "And “DUH”, you are telling me I might have misinterpreted something!" part).

 

Sayonara, I scanned back over this “thread” to see what exactly prompted me to post my comment. Below you will see conjoined “posts” that triggered my reaction. To wit:

Sayonara, I considered Hypertilly’s reply a logical statement. And I didn’t “read into it” that he/she was implying that dogs “have souls” or “thought that dogs have souls”, but only the fact that us humans are not dogs and can not converse with dogs so therefore we don’t know what all they think about.

Yes, it has got a bit convoluted this thread. But recall that I entered a dialogue with you specifically in relation to the abstract thought comment, and that the points of discussion which are pertinent to that are all that matter to it. Perhaps it would have been better if we had just started a new thread, "What is Abstract Thought?" or similar.

 

[EDIT: Lucaspa has now started a new thread here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30956]

 

But I do know they “think”, ……. and with “reasoning” that is coherent and logical. And dogs also have the ability to “verbalize” (express: articulate; either verbally or with a cry, shout, or noise;), …… but not via human speech. But I ignored Lucas’s statement on said, but not his “disclaimer” based on “brain size”.

Reason and logic are useful to abstract thought but can operate outside it (for example, when dealing with concrete entities), and verbalisation is not any indicator of abstract thought. I think we are in danger of muddying the waters somewhat.

 

Sayonara, I guess it just “concerned me” that Lucas cited two (2), ….. in my learned opinion, …. untruths, ….. regardless of what his “intent” for doing said was.

Are you saying you want Lucaspa to revisit those two points and present more comprehensive evidence? I would be interested also, although not so much as an opponent.

 

Also, top marks for using "phooey" and "piffle" in the same post.

[joshuam168]

"you can see there that the banding patterns are all pretty much the same."

Must i point out that seemingly small differences in DNA arrangements constitute vast differences in products from that code of DNA? Even tho these chromosomes to the eye look similar and seem to have but very small variations on a genetic level those can be incredibly vast differences. So show me a genetic "map" of all those "small" differences in the species and if the genetic "map" shows them to be small differences then i concede to ypur point. Til then dont trust your eye to make decisions with DNA;)

[lucaspa]

"you can see there that the banding patterns are all pretty much the same."

Must i point out that seemingly small differences in DNA arrangements constitute vast differences in products from that code of DNA? Even tho these chromosomes to the eye look similar and seem to have but very small variations on a genetic level those can be incredibly vast differences. So show me a genetic "map" of all those "small" differences in the species and if the genetic "map" shows them to be small differences then i concede to ypur point. Til then dont trust your eye to make decisions with DNA;)

 

Apples and oranges. Or a strawman. In looking at chromosomes, you can determine the similarity of chromosomes by banding patterns. People can identify merged chromosomes, translocations, fusions, truncations, and other changes to a chromosome by looking at the banding patterns. It's all well-documented in the scientific literature dealing with issues other than the chimp-human genome. And that's what we are talking about here: chromosome fusion.

[root]

This seems prity relavent, any comments in reference to the Comment:

 

http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/12/neanderthal-genome-my-testable.html

 

Hi

Because we share some alleged ERV's with chimps. It is thus suggested as proof for our common descent, that we both must have originated from a specie that was infected by this virus. The first problem with this argument is that it's hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn't come with a tag attached saying: "This is an ERV". It could be that some genes which we expect to be ERV's aren't ERV's but something completely different, or it could even be junk genes, byproduct. That is because a virus will rarely be embedded in it's complete form. To explain this, let my use a simplified example. Imagine a woman who has a flu and the virus gets embedded and passed on to a fertilized egg cell. This is of course unlikely because the common flu virus is usually not located near the ovaries, but indulge me for the sake of argument and simplicity. The child would have a flu in every single cell of his body. His cells would constantly reproduce this virus, and spread it throughout it's body. You can imagine this fetus doesn't have a fighting chance from the start on. No, for an ERV to be passed down trough generations, it has to be rendered harmless first. So how do you recognize it as a virus after this rendition to harmless junk then?

 

A second problem of the argument, is it's slippery slope. What if both chimps and humans were infected by the virus, and both got ERV's in a similar fashion? After all, given their similar physiology, that seems reasonable enough right? Well the reply from evolutionists is, that the ERV is specific in a certain locus (place on the genes) and it is improbable for both chimps and humans to create an ERV at the exact same spot. However, I disagree. There is a recent discovery at the university of Pennsylvania US that shows a human DNA-associated protein that would dictate where on the DNA AIDS is to be inserted. The protein called LEDGF would travel along with the retrovirus in it's mantel and then modulate where in the human genome the virus is inserted. So if retroviruses can be locus specific, then loci-specific ERV's is no longer a problem for creationists. It is then a matter of simple causality. Not only similar results by common design; but also similar results by similar processes of viruses become endogenous.

[Mr Skeptic]

This seems prity relavent, any comments in reference to the Comment:

 

http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/12/neanderthal-genome-my-testable.html

 

Too bad they didn't reconstruct the virus to see if it really was a virus. Oh, wait. They did:

 

A team of scientists has reconstructed the DNA sequence of a 5-million-year-old retrovirus and shown that it is able to produce infectious particles. The retrovirus--named Phoenix--is the ancestor of a large family of mobile DNA elements' date=' some of which may play a role in cancer. The study, which is the first to generate an infectious retrovirus from a mobile element in the human genome, is considered a breakthrough for the field of retrovirus research. The findings are reported in Genome Research.

 

"Phoenix became frozen in time after it integrated into the human genome about 5 million years ago," explains Dr. Thierry Heidmann, lead investigator on the project. "In our study, we've recovered this ancestral state and shown that it has the potential for infectivity." [/quote']

[lucaspa]

This seems prity relavent, any comments in reference to the Comment:

 

http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/12/neanderthal-genome-my-testable.html

 

 

As Skeptic said, they reconstructed the virus. Also, what the poster is ignoring is that the ERV's are not just between chimps and humans, but there is a nested hierarchy of nested ERV's in all the great apes. We share more with chimps than we do with gorillas. And then we have some unique ones not in any of the other apes.

 

Here's one place where the entire ERV hierarchy is laid out: http://www.christianforums.com/t96639

 

You also have to remember that the part of the virus integrated not only varies from virus to virus, but from infection to infection in the same virus.

 

So, for all chimps or all humans to have an ERV, it means that they all descended from a common ancestor that had the ERV -- evolution.