Project Lucy - will it mean anything to you?

by donkey 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  donkey

  Unless we are individually related to the ostrich we know that the Human Genome has been successfully mapped. We are also currently mapping the genome of the chimpanzee - a project soon to be completed (with the advent of new technology the chimp DNA will be mapped much more quickly).

  Once we have the human DNA map and the Chimpanzee DNA map it will become quite possible to take the DNA from a human father and a chimpanzee mother and combine them. We will then be able to insert the DNA sequence into an embryo and have it carried to term by a human female. This will happen and it will be possible - I have very little doubt about that. Let us call the new-born baby "Lucy".

  The question this raises is: What impact will the birth of Lucy society? For ance and for all (except the truly stupid individuals) it will prove evolution true and the silly beliefs of many will evaporate in an instant (or at least I would hope that to be the case - but I probably over-estimate believers honesty once again).

  Would this prove to you once and for all that evolution is fact? Will it cause you to question what you have been taught by your priests nd elders? Afterall they claim this is absolutely impossible - only God can cause humans to be born.

  Donkey
• 

  donkey

  A further question: would you classify Lucy as Human? If not - why not?

  Of course I once again have to give credit where credit is due. The concept of this question and the topic of Project Lucy was raised by Richard Dawkins in an essay named "Son of Moore's Law" and you can find it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4326031,00.html
• 

  Prisca

  We will then be able to insert the DNA sequence into an embryo and have it carried to term by a human female.

  If the DNA's of man and chimp are so similar, why can't they sucessfully cross-breed anyway, without the intervention of modern science? If not, what does that say about the gap between man and beast?

  This will happen and it will be possible - I have very little doubt about that. Let us call the new-born baby "Lucy".

  it will prove evolution true

  Bit hard for you to assume something will be "proven" based on a hypothetical and expect us to discuss it as a proven fact.

  the silly beliefs of many will evaporate in an instant (or at least I would hope that to be the case - but I probably over-estimate believers honesty once again).

  And what if the "silly beliefs" of evolutionists are proven wrong by the inability for the DNAs of man and beast to assimilate?

  Note re "honesty" - don't assume people's motives for believing what they do. In the majority of cases, it is lack of knowledge or inability to think outside the square. If nothing else, it gives them comfort that evolution doesn't provide.

  Would this prove to you once and for all that evolution is fact?

  How? What aspect of evolution would it "prove"?

  Will it cause you to question what you have been taught by your priests nd elders?

  I question what the priests and elders teach - but I also question scientists that claim that evolution is a fact. The day you stop questioning is the day you stop learning.

  Afterall they claim this is absolutely impossible - only God can cause humans to be born.

  Humans cause humans to be born
• 

  donkey

  If the DNA's of man and chimp are so similar, why can't they sucessfully cross-breed anyway, without the intervention of modern science? If not, what does that say about the gap between man and beast?

  Perhaps Ape males just find human females unnatractive?
  

  And what if the "silly beliefs" of evolutionists are proven wrong by the inability for the DNAs of man and beast to assimilate?

  See, that's just it. Science relies on evidence to make it's point. Religion relies on the lack of evidence to make it's point.

  I encourage falsification of what I think because it allows me to search for truth and allows me to grow. Religion is totally against falsification - since it relies on that which cannot be proven true it cannot encourage you to prove it false either. It is the mystical that requires faith...and the twisting of the mystical that gives makes it powerful.

  We will then be able to insert the DNA sequence into an embryo and have it carried to term by a human female.

  If the DNA's of man and chimp are so similar, why can't they sucessfully cross-breed anyway, without the intervention of modern science? If not, what does that say about the gap between man and beast?

  This will happen and it will be possible - I have very little doubt about that. Let us call the new-born baby "Lucy".

  it will prove evolution true

  Bit hard for you to assume something will be "proven" based on a hypothetical and expect us to discuss it as a proven fact.

  the silly beliefs of many will evaporate in an instant (or at least I would hope that to be the case - but I probably over-estimate believers honesty once again).

  And what if the "silly beliefs" of evolutionists are proven wrong by the inability for the DNAs of man and beast to assimilate?

  Note re "honesty" - don't assume people's motives for believing what they do. In the majority of cases, it is lack of knowledge or inability to think outside the square. If nothing else, it gives them comfort that evolution doesn't provide.

  What is more important - comfort or truth? When someone elses beliefs contradict our own they then make us uncomfortable and then conflicts occur when the two parties meet.

  I also question scientists that claim that evolution is a fact

  Do you question scientists who say the "earth is round" too?
• 

  DanTheMan

  One thing that I don't understand about evolution, sorry if this is slightly off topic but I think it pretty much goes along with this thread -

  Current evolutionary theory, if I understand it correctly, explains the process of speciation as continual changes in our DNA, which, over the span of thousands of years, results a new species.

  What I want to know is, if traveled back in time 5000 years, would my sperm be compatible with the ovums of human females living at that time? Would it be "less" compatible than it is with contemporary female homo sapiens? And if so, what would the "less compatible" mean? Less likelihood of reproductive success? Or freakish, mutant offspring perhaps?

  If I went back 50,000 years, would I be completely genetically incompatible with the prehistoric human stock living at that time?

  So where do you draw the line between an old species and a new one?
• 

  zen nudist

  the difference between humans and our closest relatives the chimps is about 1.6% in DNA terms, that probably means we are compatible enough to produce a sterile cross bread like a horse and donkey can.

  Between humans our DNA drift is less than .01%... going back 5000 years would not be enough drift time to make any real difference that would be noticible.

  DNA drift takes 100s of thousands of years... the speculation is that chimps split off 6million years ago.... so if you go back any time since then you will likely be able to have human offspring with only variations that we see as cultural today.

  however to go backwards in time you would have to rewind the entire universe... not a likelihood.
• 

  SixofNine

  If the DNA's of man and chimp are so similar, why can't they sucessfully cross-breed anyway, without the intervention of modern science?

  Oh Come ON Prisca!!! Your single minded devotion to answering that question is what got you booted from the congregation; and now you want to pursue it here???