According to Live Science:
“A particular version of a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4 is linked to people’s tendency toward both infidelity and uncommitted one-night stands, the researchers reported Nov. 30 in the online open-access journal PloS One.The same gene has already been linked to alcoholism and gambling addiction, as well as less destructive thrills like a love of horror films. One study linked the gene to an openness to new social situations, which in turn correlated with political liberalism.”
Hmmm. A gene that leads people into debauchery, fornication, adultery, and lust? In Biblical terms: Sin. Some people would look at this and assume that means that people who struggle with these things are programmed to do them and can't help themselves. They are trapped - victims of their own natures. The Bible agrees. And any of us are a hair's breath from falling into any one of these things, unless you are in those things already, so we can't judge ourselves better than anyone else. Fortunately, the Bible not only defines a problem - one that DNA and genetics - confirms, but also points out that our Creator has also provided a solution. The solution is Jesus Christ. If want to be made whole - you can be.
Slutty DNA Study Provides New Way To Guilt Parents « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.
How in the world would Adam's "sin" cause some of us to have genes that predispose us to certain "sins" and others of us to have genes that protects us from thos "sins"?
ReplyDeleteThis evidence actually shows that many of us are actually not "a hair's breath from falling into any one of these things". It depends on the genes.
Nope, this is what we would expect to see if evolution was true (or macro evolution, whatever that means...)
Ryan, who said: others of us to have genes that protects us from those "sins"? I didn't. I don't think that the evidence is saying that at all. No one is immune. And the study does not say that there are people who doesn't have that gene. That is not saying that everyone will do all of these things, but as the Bible says no one is immune from the propensity to do those things. You say "it depends on the genes" - so you agree with the Bible that we are indebted to sin and can't help ourselves. We need help. Go to Jesus.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say you said it, the article said it. If you don't have "the slut gene" you are less predisposed to "fornication" or adultary.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't cheat on my wife if my life depended on it. I always assumed that was upbringing, but apparently the genes could be at play too (my parents were both very loyal/monogamous).
I can see how both the "slut gene" and the lack of the "slut gene" could both be simulatenously selected in a population.
That is not what you said. You suggested that people have gens that protect them for those behaviors. The study wasn't about that. Where in the article does it say that they have found people who don't have the gene? Are you arguing that a person who does not have the gene are more evolved than people who do? Vice Versa? What would cause a population gain or loose it? Mutation?
ReplyDeleteUltimately, mutation, then natural selection.
ReplyDeleteIn the simplest terms, if you don't have the "slut gene" you'd be protected (but not immune, upbringing/culture plays a role...) from being a slut. Maybe I could have been clearer.
What does "more evolved" mean anyway? I'm pretty sure you are using it wrong, picturing Dr. Manhattan as an end result of being "more evolved". So no. If the environment requires sluttiness, then that gene will probably get selected. If it doesn't, then it probably won't.
Name an environment where sluttiness is required?
ReplyDeleteWho is the mutant - the slut or the not slut?
ReplyDeleteYeah, you're a "scientist" alright... wow...
ReplyDeleteI'm not a biologist and never claimed to be. If you think that the "slut" gene or the lack of it has to do with a mutation I'm asking who came first? Was there a population that only had sluts and then there was mutation and through natural selection now we have sluts and non sluts? Who came first and who evolved? Surely you know.[I'm not calling "Shirley"]
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think came first, a gene or the absence of that gene? Seems pretty obvious to me.
ReplyDeleteAbsence of the gene came first. If it didn't where did it come from in the first place? Do Chimpanzee's have it too? You didn't answer my questions. It's okay to admit that you don't know and have no evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou realize chimps are our cousins, not ancestors, right?
ReplyDeleteI don't know everything about this, more than happy to admit. But there is evidence. Read the paper.
Better yet, read an intro level biology book Mr. "Scientist".
I honestly think that if you read an intro level book and then asked me (or random non-biologist on the street) to clarify something from the book and if I was unable, you'd consider that a defeat for evolution.
ReplyDeleteSee the problem there?
I never said that Chimpanzees were our ancestors. I was referring to the fact that if you are right about humans and chimpanzees having a common ancestral species, and that the gene in question came from that species.
ReplyDeleteJust because I'm asking you questions you can't answer doesn't mean evolution is wrong, only that you don't understand what you affirm.
Also, the fact that I can ask questions does not show I need an introductory biological textbook because you claim you did and you still can't answer my questions.
Yup, the problem is you don't know what you are talking about.
I was referring to the fact that if you are right about humans and chimpanzees having a common ancestral species, and that the gene in question came from that species.
ReplyDeleteOr not
Just because I'm asking you questions you can't answer doesn't mean evolution is wrong, only that you don't understand what you affirm.
Like you and the trinity?
OR not
ReplyDeleteIt did if the lack of the gene is a mutation, Which makes sense because there hasn't been an observed mutation that adds genes - just lost ones. Minuses not pluses.
I seem to understand the theory of Evolutions and the Trinity better than you do.
Look up "Interspersed repeat" or the two papers listed below, because we have observed mutations creating new genes.
ReplyDeleteYou don't understand much.
Adam Speil "Darwinian alchemy: Human genes from noncoding DNA"
Na Liul, et al "The evolution and functional diversification of animal microRNA genes"
You mean this one [from the extract]"
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, despite their additional complexity, these mechanisms remain essentially duplicative, in the sense that sequences encoding one or more protein-coding genes are copied, by one mechanism or another, and used as the starting point for a new gene sequence. (An exception is the exonization of noncoding transposable elements, such as Alus, but this process tends to generate individual exons rather than entire genes;Makalowski et al. 1994; Nekrutenko and Li 2001.) By contrast, the origination of protein-coding genes de novo from nonrepetitive, noncoding DNA has been thought to occur only as an exceptionally rare event during evolution. Indeed, the emergence of complete, functional genes—with promoters, open reading frames (ORFs), and functional proteins—from “junk” DNA would seem highly improbable, almost like the elusive transmutation of lead into gold that was sought by medieval alchemists.
Yup, a powerful defense for the emergence of mutation creating new genes. While the abstract goes on to say
Over the past few years, this view has begun to change, with several reports of de novo gene origins in Drosophila and yeast (Levine …
So, would you really want to stake your belief in evolution on the idea that its likely for new genes to be created giving rise to new species - (that would be macro evolutions - since you don't know what it is). No one is arguing that a evolution by natural selection does not happen within a species. A bird will still be a bird. A dog will still be a dog. The problem is the evidence for amphibians, reptiles, and primates having a common ancestral species. .
and here is the link
ReplyDelete...with several reports of de novo gene origins in Drosophila and yeast...
ReplyDeleteAnd yet Marcus said "...there hasn't been an observed mutation that adds genes.".
When you make statements like that you most likely will be wrong, especially when speaking beyond your expertise.
And for the record, I don't have a "belief in evolution", it's just the theory that best fits the data. No skin off my nose if it's shown to be wrong tomorrow. It is however, far, far, far more likely a scenerio than what the Hebrews plagerized from the Sumerians 3200 years ago.
Fine. I should have qualified the statement with I have not seen many examples of useful additional genes added through mutation. Most observed mutations are harmful to succeeding generations. You however have to admit that you are overstating your case if you think you can uses this evidence to advance that we have common ancestor with a potato.
ReplyDeleteAs for if the Hebrews Plagiarized the Sumarian myths. You have two problem you must account for. Jews and Sumarians share a common origin. Abraham came out of the people and culture, remember? And you have to explain why the proportionality of the dimension given for Noah's Ark in the Bible are consistent with modern ship building practices while the sumerian story describes it as a cube?
why the proportionality of the dimension given for Noah's Ark in the Bible are consistent with modern ship building practices
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
But no, I was talking about the creation myths.
You however have to admit that you are overstating your case if you think you can uses this evidence to advance that we have common ancestor with a potato.
ReplyDeleteNo. It's been almost 4 billion years.
Point is you can't prove it. And those proportions are real. And I admit to being wrong about you thinking that the Flood story form the Bible is from the Sumarians. Happy day. we agree on something.
ReplyDeleteNo, the flood story is Sumerian, not sure how different ratios of ark shape show that something written much more recently was in fact the original...
ReplyDeleteI was laughing at your claim that you can determine that "modern shipbuilding practices" were used based on Genesis 6:14-16. What's gofer wood? What's a "cubit" in this case? The longest wooden ships ever built were in the 375 feet range (at the waterline) and they were built in the last two centuries, and for the most part they all sunk due to a tendency to flex and buckle even when reinforced with steel (come on Mr. Engineer, you should know this!). It's very unlikely that 8 people from the desert built a 450' long wooden boat that survived what would have been some the roughest seas the world would have ever seen.
Tsk.Tsk. Don't you know that the ark has the same proportions of length-to-width-to-height as those same large ships you are bringing up? No. Guess not.
ReplyDeleteWell, no they don't, they vary. While the Ark supposedly had a length/beam ratio of 6, the Pretoria has a length/beam ration of 7.68 and the Rochambeau had a 5.24.
ReplyDeleteBut that brings up the question of so what? We've been building boats for milenia, why are you surprised that people incorporated sound principles (while obviously exagerating) into their myths.
Note; the Sumerians used squareish river barges, so that's what they incorporated into their myths.
More importantly, you dodged the rest of my points. But I tire of debunking Noah's Ark, it's like "Baby's first Debunking". Respond if you like. I'm out.
PS: MACROevolution is just evolution + 4 billion years. We have evidence from fruit flies and yeast because of their short generational cycles.
A fruit fly never becomes anything other than a fruit fly - Micro evolution. Yeast does not turn into something else. When James White was an undergraduate he performed such experiments himself - breeding fruit flies. Have you? No. I'll take his word over yours.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say anything about the length/beam ratio. I said the ratio between lengh-width; length to height. And "same" meaning in the correct tolerances to remain stable.
the point is that the ratio given in the Bible is the special ratio for large ships to survive extreme ocean going conditions - almost impossible to capsize. If such a ship existed we know it can't be a cube. It would have to have dimensional ratio given in the Bible. We don't know what Gopher wood is...so what? We know what a Cubit is - 18 inches (but for the point I'm making units don't matter - they divide out). My point is they could not have know what the dimensions should be for a vessel that size. No one eles seemed to know that before 2 centuries ago. Even if you think the story is bogus, how did the Jews know and the Sumarians didn't? You haven't debunked anything but the benefit of the doubt I had given you about your ability to understand math and simple reasoning.
Since you are appealing to authority, how about Francis Collins?
ReplyDeleteAlso, beam is the nautical term for width, dummy.
And "same" meaning in the correct tolerances to remain stable.
Like I said, the modern wooden boats that were closest to that length mostly sank or were scrapped, so not sure why you think that ratio implies stability.
the point is that the ratio given in the Bible is the special ratio for large ships to survive extreme ocean going conditions... My point is they could not have know what the dimensions should be for a vessel that size. No one eles seemed to know that before 2 centuries ago.
Not true. The Seawaymax class has a loa/beam ratio of 9.4 and the VLCC class tanker has a loa/beam ratio of 7.8. The Oasis of the Seas is 7.6 and the Titanic was 9.5. I think you're just making assertions without knowledge.
In short, they didn't know what the demensions for a vessle that size should be. My sailboat, which is much more similar to ancient craft than cruise ships or super tankers are, has a ratio (5.5) closer to the alleged ark, it's likely they just extrapolated from existing craft (like the Sumerians did with their barges, and if I recall, the Sumerian myth was not global, or at least not explicitly).
The cubit ranged from 17.5 inches to 20.6 depending on the cubit in question. Obviously, that doesn't change the ratios, but it does change the lenght/beam/draft/freeboard (not that we know what the water line was supposed to be) quite a bit. And Cedar or reeds (most likely candidtate translation), or some unknown middle eastern hardwood isn't capable of producing 450 foot ocean going craft. Shouldn't you have studied martierals in college Mr Scientist?
So, as for the longest wooden ships ever built that are close to your “god breathed” LOA/Beam Ratio of 6 were the Orlando and Mersey, both of which were scrapped after they developed structural failures soon after their first voyages. Then you have the Wyoming at 329 feet which went down with all hands in heavy seas.
ReplyDeleteNote; all of the ships were over 100 feet shorter than the alleged Ark.
Someone's really good at google? Maybe not.
ReplyDeleteI specifically talked about height, not just length or width. Excuse me, but you seem really good at ignoring context. I was also referring to capsizing when I was referring to stability. The numbers you are "providing" don't take height into account.
Bottom line, we don't know what gopher wood is or what it's properties are. You're just making speculation for what the ark could have been made of. We don't know...which means you can't say it isn't possible. To say you know, means you are being dishonest.
On top of that do your really think Crick would argue that we've seen yeast or fruit flies turn into any other animals? In another four billion years fruit flies will still be fruit flies.
The Seawaymax class has a loa/beam ratio of 9.4 and the VLCC class tanker has a loa/beam ratio of 7.8. The Oasis of the Seas is 7.6 and the Titanic was 9.5. I think you're just making assertions without knowledge.
were these ships built before or after 1800? Were those disension proprotions used for large ships before the modern era? As far sas Iknow, they were not. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than trying to show you know more about boats than i do. fine. Doesn't matter because you can make all kind of assumption about the indisputable fact that the proportions were not in use for centuries and such a craft is almost uncapsizeable (what I mean by stable).
Heights is irrelavant if you don't know the waterline (giving us draft and freeboard).
ReplyDelete"...we've seen yeast or fruit flies turn into any other animals?"
This an example of how belief makes smart people stupid. 1) fruit flies are animals. And 2) it's incremental change, a yeast doesn't turn into a monkey, but it does eventually change into something similar to, but not quite yeast, which changes... which changes.... And 3) you goobers poo-poo changes you don't understand and make dumb statements like "yeast will still be yeast" or even dumber ones like "bacteria will still be bacteria" when that's very similar to saying "well in four billion years mice will still be chordates". Yeah, no duh... and 4) we can infer from the fossil record that things like fruit flies have in fact turned into other animals.
were these ships built before or after 1800?
When do you think the Titanic was built? Maybe try google or rent the movie and take note of the costumes?
Heights is irrelevant if you don't know the waterline (giving us draft and freeboard).
ReplyDeleteYou can use as ship's height, to find the waterline. And calculate how analyze what conditions will cause a ship to capsize.
Who said that fruit flies are not animals? I didn't. I said "other animals". You are surely dense if you think I don't know evolution refers to incremental changes. When did I say it didn't. I'm arguing that there will not be enough incremental changes to explain a monkey evolving from yeast. PRove otherwise. All you have are assumptions and inferences. I would not say in four billion years that mice will still be chordates because not all chrodates are mice. However mice will still be mice. What fossils do you have to show fruit flies turning into anything else? Evidence please. Inferences are all you have.
I know when the Titanic was built! And who said anything about the Titanic? I didn't. My point was that all the ships you mentioned were not possible before 1800! How did Noah know what proportions to use? God told him, according to the narrative.
You can use as ship's height, to find the waterline.
ReplyDeleteNo, not without knowing the displacement, which of course you don't. Especially since you have no idea what the properties of gofer wood were.
Who said that fruit flies are not animals?
My bad.
I'm arguing that there will not be enough incremental changes to explain a monkey evolving from yeast. PRove otherwise.
See this, or specifically this.
I would not say in four billion years that mice will still be chordates because not all chrodates are mice.
All chordates are chordates and that's the similar to saying "bacteria will still be bacteria".
What fossils do you have to show fruit flies turning into anything else? Evidence please.
See above.
And who said anything about the Titanic? I didn't. My point was that all the ships you mentioned were not possible before 1800!
Well, you asked if the Titanic was built before or after 1800. So let me see if I can summarize your position. Because a mythic giant boat is roughly boat shaped and because we weren't able to build a boat bigger than this mythic boat shaped boat, then the myth must be true? Your fragile beliefs are just lucky we have no idea what gofer wood was, so you can pretend it has the properties of multiple layers of plate steel.
Remember the part where modern wooden boats using that LOA/Beam ratio were structurally unsound? And before you say I'm forgetting "height", these ships didn't capsize, they broke under their own weight, because they were too long to be made of wood. Also remember they were 100 feet or more shorter than your mythic boat shaped boat.
No, not without knowing the displacement, which of course you don't. Especially since you have no idea what the properties of gofer wood were.
ReplyDeleteIf you know the shape, length, width, height - you know the volume. If you know the volume, you can estimate the displacement, by making assumptions of Gopher wood - which you did earlier.
Thanks for the list of transitional fossils - but again it doesn't prove what you think it proves.
I didn't ask any such thing about the titanic. And The ships didn't capsize because of the ratio of their dimensions. As for Gopher wood properties you have no way of saying it could not sustain the stresses that broke the other large wooden ships. Your arguments have holes large enough for the ark to float through.
Me: ...and the Titanic was 9.5. I think you're just making assertions without knowledge.
ReplyDeleteYou: were these ships built before or after 1800?
Me: When do you think the Titanic was built?
You: And who said anything about the Titanic? I didn't. My point was that all the ships you mentioned were not possible before 1800!
Me: Well, you asked if the Titanic was built before or after 1800.
You: I didn't ask any such thing about the titanic.
idiot...
You do understand the meaning or rhetorical question? Guess not.
ReplyDeleteRight, because that's what you meant. Whatever you need to get through the day...
ReplyDeleteIf you know the shape, length, width, height - you know the volume. If you know the volume, you can estimate the displacement, by making assumptions of Gopher wood - which you did earlier.
ReplyDeleteFinal comment; you'd also need to know the weight of two of every animal on earth. You don't, nor do you know the density of gofer wood.
You... don't... know...
I don't reject evolution, remember, so i would not need to know the weight of two every single animal on the earth! For example, was every breed of dog on the ark? No, just the single breed of dog from which all dogs came.
ReplyDeleteI never said I knew all the particulars, but you can make good assumptions to come up with a "back-of-the-envelop" calculations to show whether or not something that large would capsize. What do you have against such inference? Your whole acceptance of Macro Evolution is based on inference.