Differences in humans

Silvertusk · Post by **Silvertusk** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 1:13 am

Isn't this a bit of a blow for evolution?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6174510.stm

The fact that we are not similar?

Silvertusk.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:26 am

Silvertusk wrote:Isn't this a bit of a blow for evolution?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6174510.stm

The fact that we are not similar?

Silvertusk.

Why, should it?

godslanguage · Post by **godslanguage** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:41 am

Here is one that is a little more in depth:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/sci ... 007490.ece

Swamper · Post by **Swamper** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:07 am

Interesting.

I wonder what this will mean for people looking for cures to genetic diseases?

David Blacklock · Post by **David Blacklock** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:09 pm

Silvertusk: "Isn't this a blow to evolution?"

DB: no

Swamper: "I wonder what this will mean for people looking for cures to genetic diseases?"

DB: Advances in knowledge are ongoing and welcomed. Research will continue business as usual.

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:53 pm

silver, you really need to get out more.
The problem with studying genes is simple. We don't know what information in the gene's is pertinent to our "individualness".

Evolution isn't detracted by the amount of differences there are between us, we know there is a boatload of differences. But what information in the gene matters? This is stuff Creationist want us not to figure out.

Consider it, read "The Selfish Gene" from Dawkins and get a real perspective on genetic\evolutionary theory.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:06 pm

faithinware wrote:silver, you really need to get out more.
The problem with studying genes is simple. We don't know what information in the gene's is pertinent to our "individualness".

Evolution isn't detracted by the amount of differences there are between us, we know there is a boatload of differences. But what information in the gene matters? This is stuff Creationist want us not to figure out.

Consider it, read "The Selfish Gene" from Dawkins and get a real perspective on genetic\evolutionary theory.

Why would you imagine that creationists would not "want us to figure out" something? It's either true or it is not.

Dawkins has gone quite a bit further since The Selfish Gene and attempted to categorize religion as child abuse and evolution as solid evidence for the non-existencde of God. Are you or he prepared to demonstrate that level of certainty? Again, why is it necessary to paint creationists of any degree as frauds and/or deceivers in this manner?

Please read the board purpose and discussion guidelines and see if you think that type of a statement is in keeping with them. Beyond that, consider whether you really want to present Dawkins or Atheistic evolution as that certain to make that kind of claim.

Bart

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:20 pm

I figure creationist are synonymous with "young earth theorists".

What I mean is that hard core religion doesn't want science to work on stem cell research, because of their belief that a few day old cells actually make up a human being.

Sorry if you misunderstood my meaning.

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:25 pm

And you can't deny the child abuse that goes on in the Catholic religion!
Or you could deny it I guess. The Catholic church is in a suspended state of denial about the problems with Priests and pedophiles. The secular public more or less thinks that this is synonymous.

I must admit that being a priest would be attractive to a pedophile, due to the level of trust the priest is privileged to have.

Just something to consider.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:32 pm

faithinware wrote:I figure creationist are synonymous with "young earth theorists".

What I mean is that hard core religion doesn't want science to work on stem cell research, because of their belief that a few day old cells actually make up a human being.

Sorry if you misunderstood my meaning.

I have difficulties with Young Earth Creationism too, but I don't imagine that they collectively as a group are deceivers.

Many points of view have difficulties with embryonic stem cell research and not just on religious bases although those would be the majority. When do you scientifically assert human life begins? Do you have a purely scientific definition that relies solely on science as to the moral and ethical issues involved in such research? Care to share it?

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:41 pm

Let me ask you a question.
Consider the mustard seed.

Let's say we make it illegal to kill mustard plants.
Does that also mean destroying a single mustard seed is also illegal. I mean with cultivation, it would become a mustard plant.

You can't define human life within bound sets. You can however estimate at what point human life should be allowed to grow.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist. I am a scientist. I favor some of Richard's ideas, not because he is wrong. But because he has very good ideas about how the world works. And we haven't found out how the world works from say Priests or Ministers. Although they do have their value when it comes to human values.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:50 pm

faithinware wrote:Let me ask you a question.
Consider the mustard seed.

Let's say we make it illegal to kill mustard plants.
Does that also mean destroying a single mustard seed is also illegal. I mean with cultivation, it would become a mustard plant.

You can't define human life within bound sets. You can however estimate at what point human life should be allowed to grow.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist. I am a scientist. I favor some of Richard's ideas, not because he is wrong. But because he has very good ideas about how the world works. And we haven't found out how the world works from say Priests or Ministers. Although they do have their value when it comes to human values.

"You can't define human life with bound sets." I hope I'm never subjected at any stage of my life to yours or anyone elses attempt to impose your subjective opinions upon me or anyone I love.

Richard Dawkins is a scientific philosopher. What he does and the assertions he makes are not pure science. They build upon assertions and underlying presuppositions that he presents as being more "reasonable."

There is no such thing as a purely objective or scientific philosophy.

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:07 pm

I am certain that Dawkins nor I will intentionally do harm.
Can you say the same for yourself?

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:10 pm

faithinware wrote:I am certain that Dawkins nor I will intentionally do harm.
Can you say the same for yourself?

I don't base my views in this arena on myself. That's an important point to make I believe.

What difference does it make as to the intent of anyone as to whether their actions are harmful or not? If someone did something that killed you would you be any less dead if their intentions were good?

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:02 pm

your right, it makes no difference to the dead guy.

However, society has a vested interest in the cause of whether intent was causal. It is this protection that we as citizens have, that is important to the living.

It is of moral value that we are interested in intent. And if intent of harm is found, the law has a stiffer punishment.

Evidence for God from Science

Differences in humans

Differences in humans

Re: Differences in humans

new findings in the genetic code