Chimps Belong In Human Genus

[WEAREBORG4102 0]

WHAT??   I'm sure glad I dragged this relic out of the back room.

 

OK, now WAB, what are you saying? I don't understand. Are you a Creationist or an Evolutionist?? You two aren't making much sense. Of course I don't know how long you two have been at it in here on this subject. wf, you said our DNA WILL change yet you had no definate percentage. what does THAT tell you?? How do YOU know how many species there were millions of years ago, nobody does. I don't believe our DNA changes. The combinations do but the basic structures don't.

 

and WAB how are you meaning the word 'entrophy'? There are a few definitions of it. Hold on.

 

A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.

The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

 

OK, I'm presuming the last two would apply in this discussion, correct? Inert uniformity? Is that what your saying wf? I don't think so. That's ridiculous. The inevitable deterioration of a system? You think we are getting weaker and sicker and live fewer years than our ancestors did? That's not correct at all. WAB, I see where your going with this. I'm with you. BUT. I also think that there IS no missing link. The way we are is the way we are. Plain and simple. They are always looking for the missing link but can't find it BECAUSE there isn't one.

271856[/snapback]

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I'm trying to explain to him is that we were created this way and we're not going to evolve. We were created by God and the evolution argument is against the second law of thermodynamics.

[fenriz275 0]

Well the Theory of Evolution is just a theory. An educated guess is still just a guess. Poor Charlie, and I bet all he really wanted to do was go on a boat ride.

[Wishfire 2]

WHAT??   I'm sure glad I dragged this relic out of the back room.

 

OK, now WAB, what are you saying? I don't understand. Are you a Creationist or an Evolutionist?? You two aren't making much sense. Of course I don't know how long you two have been at it in here on this subject. wf, you said our DNA WILL change yet you had no definate percentage. what does THAT tell you?? How do YOU know how many species there were millions of years ago, nobody does. I don't believe our DNA changes. The combinations do but the basic structures don't.

 

and WAB how are you meaning the word 'entrophy'? There are a few definitions of it. Hold on.

 

A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.

The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

 

OK, I'm presuming the last two would apply in this discussion, correct? Inert uniformity? Is that what your saying wf? I don't think so. That's ridiculous. The inevitable deterioration of a system? You think we are getting weaker and sicker and live fewer years than our ancestors did? That's not correct at all. WAB, I see where your going with this. I'm with you. BUT. I also think that there IS no missing link. The way we are is the way we are. Plain and simple. They are always looking for the missing link but can't find it BECAUSE there isn't one.

271856[/snapback]

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I'm trying to explain to him is that we were created this way and we're not going to evolve. We were created by God and the evolution argument is against the second law of thermodynamics.

272972[/snapback]

 

But not everyone believes in God. If you do, that's all fine and good, I'm not going to say you're wrong because I simply do not know. But I don't believe in God, at least, not the way Christians portray Him. But even if He does exist, how do you know that he didn't create a process called evolution so He can watch His children, as a species, grow? He CAN do anything, after all.

[Jeanway 0]

Oh Lordy, Lordy, Lordy. We DO grow. From and egg to a mature adult to an old peson who dies. That's growing, isn't it? What your taking about is "Change". And I don't pretend to know the MIND of God or the Creator or whatever it is that put us here. We haven't even figured out our own bodies yet. How can we possibly understand the BIG PICTURE??? That's called 'arrogance' You tell me how to make a 'rock' from scratch, then I'll listen to you about DNA.

[Odie 0]

Oh Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.   We DO grow. From and egg to a mature adult to an old peson who dies. That's growing, isn't it? What your taking about is "Change". And I don't pretend to know the MIND of God or the Creator or whatever it is that put us here. We haven't even figured out our own bodies yet. How can we possibly understand the BIG PICTURE??? That's called 'arrogance' You tell me how to make a 'rock' from scratch, then I'll listen to you about DNA.

273036[/snapback]

 

Jeanway, that was true profound what you have just posted. I agree with you 100%. Here is a web page on life cycle of a rock. Earth Floor I am not touching DNA on this board. Well not on this thread anyway.

Edited October 16, 2004 by Odie

[Jeanway 0]

Very Cool Pic Odie. But what I meant was how can one MAKE a rock. This stuff is already there. The rock is just formed. I mean how do the raw materials get formed and from where do they come? Then where do the molecules come from? Then where do the atoms come from? Something doesn't come from nothing. Where does it all begin?

 

Edited October 16, 2004 by Jeanway

[Odie 0]

Very Cool Pic Odie. But what I meant was how can one MAKE a rock. This stuff is already there. The rock is just formed. I mean how do the raw materials get formed and from where do they come? Then where do the molecules come from? Then where do the atoms come from? Something doesn't come from nothing. Where does it all begin?

 

273047[/snapback]

 

I have been having that debate since my freshman year of high school. Some would say it was just created by God and it has not changed or won't change. Other believe that God created the basic building blocks of life and let it go from there. Than there is the big bang theory. That something did come from nothing. I believe the truth is somewhere in between the theory of creation and evolution.

 

Everything that is on this planet is made up of basic elements. Without them there is no life. Here is periodic table.

Edited October 16, 2004 by Odie

[Wishfire 2]

As I understood the Big Bang Theory, it was that all matter had been compressed into a tiny space, and then exploded violently outward.

 

Of course, there are several different variants of that, but they all end with the same thing.

 

The theory I think is most logical is that there was another universe before ours. It reached a point at which it could not expand any further, then started to contract. It finally contracted to the point that all matter was compressed to the size of (for instance) a mountain, then exploded outwards, creating this universe. Of course, then there's the question of where did that universe come from. Was it created the same way? If so, what about the universe before that one? Where does it all begin.

 

On top of my prefered theory, I believe that there may be some sort of temporal field surrounding the whole thing, bring the end of one back to its own beginning. That way, there doesn't have to be and end, or a beginning. Kinda like the way and avatar recycles itself, or looping a tape.

Edited October 16, 2004 by wishfire

[Wishfire 2]

This topic HAS gotten way off-topic. So I created a new thread, Science vs God. Just pick up from here.

[Odie 0]

I thought the topic got out of hand several posts ago.

[Wishfire 2]

It has! More than several, I think. That's why I created the new thread.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Okay, I'm sure you know this but chimps are not monkeys.

 

Some links

Entropy -

Entropysite

From that site:

What Is Entropy, REALLY?

Entropy just measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes – as a function of temperature. (Sometimes, it’s a simple equation, Entropy change = “energy dispersed”/ T, or qreversible/T , as in phase changes like melting or vaporization where ÄS = ÄHfusion /T or ÄHvaporization /T, respectively.)

 

Creationism and the second law\

2ndlaw

talkorigins

 

I'm not really sure I see the relevance of entropy to evolution.

 

I'm don't know what is the big deal about all life having DNA in common - for one, in my view, our physical bodies are only part of who we are.

 

And, (this is the point that always gets me) evolution is based on random genetic mutations that are dispersed over time in the species population. External stimuli do not cause evolution. Yes, chemical exposure can alter dna - (that's one cause of birth defects) but for that to work in evolution:

1. The alteration could not affect the organisms chance for survival AND

2. it would have to serve to make the organism better adapted to its environment and thus have a greater likelihood of being dispered through the gene pool in the process of natural selection.

 

Most chemical exposures have the opposite effect - making the organism either less likely to survive and/or less likely to reproduce.

 

So if you stand out in the sun and give yourself cancer - it has nothing to do with evolution unless it affects your reproductive cells and alters the information you pass on to your offspring.

 

***edited to add****

 

Nor is the fact that there is an increase in illness necessarilly an indication that we are genetically becoming weaker. It may be the environmental factors we are exposed to after we've inherited our dna from our parents. However, as mentioned earlier - intra-uterine exposure to chemicals can affect the organisms development. So given the number of people that smoke, drink and take other drugs during pregnancy (not to mention consuming hormone laden food) I wouldn't be suprised if we're damaging our dna BUT as also stated above many of these children will have a lower probability of reproducing due to early death or disability.

Edited October 16, 2004 by TheUnicornHunter

[Jeanway 0]

Very Cool Pic Odie. But what I meant was how can one MAKE a rock. This stuff is already there. The rock is just formed. I mean how do the raw materials get formed and from where do they come? Then where do the molecules come from? Then where do the atoms come from? Something doesn't come from nothing. Where does it all begin?

 

273047[/snapback]

 

I have been having that debate since my freshman year of high school. Some would say it was just created by God and it has not changed or won't change. Other believe that God created the basic building blocks of life and let it go from there. Than there is the big bang theory. That something did come from nothing. I believe the truth is somewhere in between the theory of creation and evolution.

 

Everything that is on this planet is made up of basic elements. Without them there is no life. Here is periodic table.

273054[/snapback]

 

I hate to do this but..."WHERE DID THE BASIC ELEMENTS COME FROM???" :)

[Rivendells_king 0]

I just saw this topic and I fell like I want to hijack it so bad after jeanways comment!!

 

Ok my A.D.D. though: were did god come from?

[Jeanway 0]

I'm afraid with our feeble little minds we weren't meant to understand, just guess alot. We can speculate all we want but we will never know OR understand. We are all just spinning our wheels. Go eat some chocolate and forget about it. :) Good Lord! I sound like Tido :) :) :)

[Odie 0]

Very Cool Pic Odie. But what I meant was how can one MAKE a rock. This stuff is already there. The rock is just formed. I mean how do the raw materials get formed and from where do they come? Then where do the molecules come from? Then where do the atoms come from? Something doesn't come from nothing. Where does it all begin?

 

273047[/snapback]

 

I have been having that debate since my freshman year of high school. Some would say it was just created by God and it has not changed or won't change. Other believe that God created the basic building blocks of life and let it go from there. Than there is the big bang theory. That something did come from nothing. I believe the truth is somewhere in between the theory of creation and evolution.

 

Everything that is on this planet is made up of basic elements. Without them there is no life. Here is periodic table.

273054[/snapback]

 

I hate to do this but..."WHERE DID THE BASIC ELEMENTS COME FROM???" :)

273783[/snapback]

 

I would believe God create everything. So I can say with some confidants that they came from God. Anything after I don't no the answer to.

[Jeanway 0]

And neither do I Odie. :)

[deagletime 1]

Okay, I'm sure you know this but chimps are not monkeys.

 

Some links

Entropy -

Entropysite

From that site:

What Is Entropy, REALLY?

Entropy just measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes – as a function of temperature. (Sometimes, it’s a simple equation, Entropy change = “energy dispersed”/ T, or qreversible/T , as in phase changes like melting or vaporization where ÄS = ÄHfusion /T or ÄHvaporization /T, respectively.)

 

Creationism and the second law\

2ndlaw

talkorigins

 

I'm not really sure I see the relevance of entropy to evolution.

 

I'm don't know what is the big deal about all life having DNA in common - for one, in my view, our physical bodies are only part of who we are.

 

And, (this is the point that always gets me) evolution is based on random genetic mutations that are dispersed over time in the species population. External stimuli do not cause evolution. Yes, chemical exposure can alter dna - (that's one cause of birth defects) but for that to work in evolution:

1. The alteration could not affect the organisms chance for survival AND

2. it would have to serve to make the organism better adapted to its environment and thus have a greater likelihood of being dispered through the gene pool in the process of natural selection.

 

Most chemical exposures have the opposite effect - making the organism either less likely to survive and/or less likely to reproduce.

 

So if you stand out in the sun and give yourself cancer - it has nothing to do with evolution unless it affects your reproductive cells and alters the information you pass on to your offspring.

 

***edited to add****

 

Nor is the fact that there is an increase in illness necessarilly an indication that we are genetically becoming weaker. It may be the environmental factors we are exposed to after we've inherited our dna from our parents. However, as mentioned earlier - intra-uterine exposure to chemicals can affect the organisms development. So given the number of people that smoke, drink and take other drugs during pregnancy (not to mention consuming hormone laden food) I wouldn't be suprised if we're damaging our dna BUT as also stated above many of these children will have a lower probability of reproducing due to early death or disability.

273083[/snapback]

 

it appears that to no offence to anyone that i am one of the more qualifed persons to answer this debate... I am a Catholic, have my BS in biochemistry and currently in school to get my Masters in Mechanical Engineering..

 

So to settlet this, i must say that unicorn hunter is absolutely 100% correct about the origin of genetic mutation ..

 

However The second law of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution are intimately related... according to the second law of theromodynamics... the entropy of a closed system never decreases. it can remain static or in most cases increase.. now the key word is 'closed' how does one define closed??... in the most simplest system.. a cup of hot coffee will move to disorder and become cooler over time never the reverse in that closed system.. a cold cup of coffee will never become hot over time without a energy source being added to the system.

 

now from a biological standpoint, a collection of atoms will never combine to form a human being therefore the second law of thermodynamics is satisfied with respect to a system containing a petree dish of salts, minerals and water.. however, contrary to my religious beliefs, here is where evolutionism/creationism comes into play... now as I am sure many who have seen the STTNG Episode - All Good THings will recall, in earths primordial past, a collection of atoms that randomly passed another collection of atoms formed the first amino acid.. for those that say that the forming of a amino acid violates the second law, one must remember that it applies to a closed system.. in this case we can have the system include the earth, the moon, and the sun. the sun providing the heat necessary for the activation energy to form a covalent bond and the earth and moon gravitational relationship that causes tides and motion in the oceans ... therefore to include the three, the law is satisfied because in the overall equation, the ammount of entropy genertated by the fusion reactions of the sun greatly outway the decrease in disorder when the two molecules bond to form a amino acid... thus the net equation for the closed system has an increase in entropy...

 

now granted creationist will argue that god created amino acids and the human form, which is not up to me to discount but regardless evolution and the second law are intimately connected which was my point

Edited October 19, 2004 by deagletime

[Captain Bolivar 0]

3 things I wanna say:

 

1. For those that are bringing Entropy into the discussion. Entropy has to do with the TENDENCY of the UNIVERSE to get more chaotic. Note that it is a TENDENCY and no always ABSOLUTE. There are EXCEPTIONS. These exceptions do not prevent the universe from becoming more chaotic on A WHOLE!

 

2. As for creationism and evolution. Both are possible. And guess what! You can COMBINE them! For example, god could have created the universe to HAVE EVOLUTION so that we would be CREATED! For all we know, we were CREATED just seconds ago with fake memories of lives we didn't really live and fake fossils of animals that were never alive to give us the impression that there is a thing called evolution. Because of this, our debate of creationism and evolution, while interesting, can NEVER be answered. And I for one thing that is a good thing. Knowing all the answers to life wouldn't be much fun.

 

And

3. These (1 and 2 above) are a little off topic from the fact that Apes belong in the same genus as humans. The nomenclature by which we name (classify) life on Earth is valid regardless of what belief you hold regarding evolution and creationism. It's just a WAY TO NAME ANIMALS. Furthermore, ENTROPY has ZIP to do with how we name animals! That was an offshot of a topic which was an offshot of the original topic. WAY TO GO! LOL!

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Deagletime,

True, I am not a chemist but the critiques I referenced indicated that while complex arrangements don't spontaneously form - atoms do spontaneously form bonds when the bonding results in less energy?

 

Also, the theory of evolution as I've heard it does not include a spontaneous coming together of amino acids but rather the random interjection of an outside force like a bolt of lightning hitting the proverbial "protoplasmic soup". I've heard rumors of this being tried in a laboratory but I haven't really read anything about it. I think this is where some people combine the two and attribute the outside energy source to God - not lightning.

 

If I understand what you're saying - that spontaneous combination would not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics if you take the whole environment as oppposed to elements involved as "the system".

 

Which inspires a totally off topic question - but could one reason science can not detect God be because He uses an energy source outside our range of measurement?

[Wishfire 2]

UH, I saw a documentary about a scientist trying to recreate the primordial soud "accident." He did not attribute this to God, but to science. Of course, we might have seen different tests.

 

As for the last thing you said...

 

Which inspires a totally off topic question - but could one reason science can not detect God be because He uses an energy source outside our range of measurement?

 

Maybe (And this is running under the assumption that there is a God) we just haven't developed enough to percieve Him yet. Doesn't the Bible say that we are God's children? Don't parents want to see their children grow up?

[deagletime 1]

Deagletime,

True, I am not a chemist but the critiques I referenced indicated that while complex arrangements don't spontaneously form - atoms do spontaneously form bonds when the bonding results in less energy? 

 

Also, the theory of evolution as I've heard it does not include a spontaneous coming together of amino acids but rather the random interjection of an outside force like a bolt of lightning hitting the proverbial "protoplasmic soup".  I've heard rumors of this being tried in a laboratory but I haven't really read anything about it.  I think this is where some people combine the two and attribute the outside energy source to God - not lightning.

 

If I understand what you're saying - that spontaneous combination would not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics if you take the whole environment as oppposed to elements involved as "the system".

 

Which inspires a totally off topic question - but could one reason science can not detect God be because He uses an energy source outside our range of measurement?

273869[/snapback]

 

im not sure if your asking me something or agreeing with me but there are cases where atoms form a more complex form which lowers their electrostatic state an example of which is when salts form a crystal lattice with out the presence of a energy source but again the second law of thermodynamics is not violated when one considers the system that created salts in a non-ionically bonded state...

 

but yes i have heard of the research on creating complex organic molecules using the existing gases and elements know to be around during our primodial past and running them under a current to simulate lightning...The Miller-Urey experiment showed, of course, that results were inconclusive. While amino acids were readily produced (amino acids being the backbone of proteins) it was not shown how a cell could be readily produced under these conditions... But as both a catholic and scientist i believe that on the 5th day (or 5th age/millenia etc) god created the spark that turned a bunch of amino acids and nucleotides into a cell..

 

Lastly, in situations where the second law of thermodynamics appears to be violated, it is usually because the closed system in question is lacking some vital component that adds to its net disorder... a cold cup of water outside will get hotter over time violating the second law, but when one includes the sun in the system, the overall disorder of the system is in concordance with the second law..

[deagletime 1]

btw getting back on topic.. the human genome contains 6 billion base pairs... at 99.4% similarity between humans and chimps, our base pairs differ 36 million ways

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Here's a photo from a photo essay at Nat'l Geographic

 

While this appears to be a sweet picture - the story is really about the sad lot of the great apes - and take the warning seriously - there are some graphic pictures of poaching (some of you will be disturbed if you look at them)

[Jeanway 0]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist:

[Jeanway 0]

Click For Spoiler

Yes, U.H. I saw this first picture and decided I'd seen enough. I titled it in my "Picture" file "Abomination"

:P

[WEAREBORG4102 0]

I think you all are talking about StanleyMiller. He did manage to make amino acids out of gases, howwwweeeeeee,,,,,,oooaid do not just randomy appear out of nowhere to for bacterial DNA.

[Spockstellaiter 0]

He did make amino acids, but he used gases that wouldn't be around back then, and wouldn't support life. he made them out of tar i think. he totally manufactured the environment to fit his own little experiment. he made some amino acids, but they weren't nearly complex enough to make anything. what he did was create a chemical reaction.

[WEAREBORG4102 0]

He did make amino acids, but he used gases that wouldn't be around back then, and wouldn't support life. he made them out of tar i think. he totally manufactured the environment to fit his own little experiment. he made some amino acids, but they weren't nearly complex enough to make anything. what he did was create a chemical reaction.

275824[/snapback]

 

you are correct

[Jeanway 0]

OH, really??? And where'd the TAR come from???Hmmm???