This is only true for todays society. Not accordingly to the historical literature. Have you ever seen a rembrandt painting? or the Venus of Villendorf ? obesity was long viewed as something positive. Than why is it viewed so negative today??? Why do men consistently rate obesity an the number one turnoff (and women do as well)? Also, the obesity problem is a critical issue with teenagers and younger children (and it is a major cause of death. Fat kills, and the problem is so bad that it kills more than smoking, the second leading killer)
Jerry Bergman
JoinedPosts by Jerry Bergman
-
41
Are humans simply intelligent animals?
by JH in.
since man is very different from animals, then maybe we were made in god's image.
but for those who don't believe in god, how are humans any different from animals?.
-
-
-
41
Are humans simply intelligent animals?
by JH in.
since man is very different from animals, then maybe we were made in god's image.
but for those who don't believe in god, how are humans any different from animals?.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
We are based on DNA, so are the animals. If we were some special creation, why were we based on animals DNA? Because a code is required for life and all life must have a code to do what life must do to be life (and all life has a DNA and an RNA code to be compatible (also a requirement) The 95% is the similarity over the entire genome including the nonconserved regions (introns, etc. pp). the genes and regulatory regions are over 99% identical. Where did you get this information??? Also, introns have critical functions (a fact that resulted from the fact that they are often also conserved). -
41
Are humans simply intelligent animals?
by JH in.
since man is very different from animals, then maybe we were made in god's image.
but for those who don't believe in god, how are humans any different from animals?.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
I wouldn't say our intellegence has increased per se. For a start, 200 years, even if you had pretty heavy natural selection or sexual selection... Just curious, do you know of any empirical evidence for sexual selection in humans?? Research has found that the number one turn off in men is obesity, and now over 60 percent of American women are overweight. It would seem that selection should work here in view of the genetic involvement in weight.
-
41
Are humans simply intelligent animals?
by JH in.
since man is very different from animals, then maybe we were made in god's image.
but for those who don't believe in god, how are humans any different from animals?.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Our DNA is about 98% the same as apes apparently. Apparently not. The difference is now estimated to be only 95% the same (and 5% of 3 billion DNA base pairs is 150 million, an enormous difference!!!)
-
41
Are humans simply intelligent animals?
by JH in.
since man is very different from animals, then maybe we were made in god's image.
but for those who don't believe in god, how are humans any different from animals?.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
On this topic many will appreciate Richard Halvorson's "Confessions of a Skeptic" at
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=347399
Confessions of a Skeptic
By RICHARD T. HALVORSON
RICHARD T. HALVORSON
Does our culture, like many others, have an unpardonable heresy? Every
culture constructs an idol unto itself, punishing heresy by excommunication.
We can discover the sacred idol of any culture by finding its taboo
question.In Medieval Europe, the peasant was forbidden to question the truth of the
Church. Under Communism, comrades doubting the Party were thrown in gulag
labor camps. Now, citizens must recite principles of Darwinism through
compulsory schooling.
We are encouraged to learn nuances like punctuated equilibrium and
neo-Darwinism, but questioning the universal explanatory power of evolution
is met with intellectual excommunication.
I make no apology for those who blindly reject scientific evidence due to
contrived religious doctrines; I have equally little tolerance for those who
ignore scientific evidence to prop up a naturalistic anti-religious dogma.
Anti-religious prejudice among scientists significantly impeded 20th century
scientific advance. Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time that
evidence for the Big Bang was ignored for decades because it "smacks of
divine intervention." For fear of theological implications, there were "a
number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang."
Intellectual honesty requires rationally examining our fundamental
premises-yet expressing hesitation about Darwin is considered irretrievable
intellectual suicide, the unthinkable doubt, the unpardonable sin of
academia.
Although the postmodern era questions everything else-the possibility of
knowledge, basic morality and reality itself-critical discussion of Darwin
is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin's hypothesis in every
experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains an
scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas.
Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes: "It is absolutely safe to say that,
if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is
either ignorant, stupid, or insane."
Biologists continue to recite the worn credo, "the central, unifying
principle of biology is the theory of evolution." But where would physics be
if Einstein had been forced to chant, "the central, unifying principle of
physics is Newtonian theory," until he could not see beyond its limitations?
Scientific innovations originate outside the dominant paradigm-demanding
orthodoxy invites stagnation. Scientists who question evolution, like
Intelligent Design theorists, do not reject evolution entirely, but argue
that evidence supports a limited explanatory role. Faithful Darwinists,
however, like Teilhard de Chardin, insist that evolution is "a general
postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth
bow."
Luckily, no one needs a doctorate to separate honest skepticism from
institutionalized dogma. Skip Evans, of the National Center for Science
Education, worried that classroom discussions of evidence against evolution
might "cast seeds of doubt in students' minds."
Professors expressing doubts about evolution are often ostracized, demoted
or fired. A Baylor University professor found research funds rescinded
because his project would undermine evolutionary presuppositions. Other
skeptical professors have resorted to using pseudonyms, fearing for their
jobs and careers if they openly publish contrary evidence.
Evolution skeptics are almost universally dismissed with an ad hominem
charge of "religiously-motivated propaganda." Yet science students and
professors consistently fail to address the merits of critics' arguments.
They cannot answer the relevant evidential questions of: (1) what is the
most compelling critique of evolution; (2) and on which points the evidence
or arguments fail.
Most Darwinists have not read or considered biochemist Michael Behe,
geneticist Michael Denton, embryologist Jonathan Wells, or information
theorist William Dembski. These dissenting voices are systematically
marginalized and silenced by academic McCarthyism.
We must refuse to bow to our culture's false idols. Science will not benefit
from canonizing Darwin or making evolution an article of secular faith. We
must reject intellectual excommunication as a valid form of dealing with
criticism: the most important question for any society to ask is the one
that is forbidden.
-Richard T. Halvorson is an editorial editor.
Copyright © 2001, The Harvard Crimson Inc. All rights reserved. -
40
Abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman insome off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.
1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?
the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Realist said: "certain molecules catalyze their own production."
Are you referring to prions? or are there others? RNA can in some situations.
-
40
Abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman insome off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.
1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?
the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).
-
-
Jerry Bergman
That statement is from ONE person that doesn't represent ALL athiests, so how does it confirm anything? You don't even know me and yet you've already decided that I lack morals, that I am dishonest, that I don't have compassion and that I don't have a sense of humanity?! Wow! Your experience doesn't quantify everyone. If I have had only negative experiences with people that have big noses, does that mean I can accurately pigeon-hole all big nosed people? I think not. All of these are good points and I do not disagree with most of what you say. My point was that my experience with atheists was as I described. At universities many professors are atheists or very close it , so I have a lot of experience with such people (and I used to be there once, actually in the inner circle for a while). My experience is that most display these traits to some degree. Have you ever seen atheists fight with words with each other or especially Christians? They can be unbelievably cruel. Christians can be cruel but tend to have limits and often do not go as far. It could be professors are a abnormally cruel breed. I will let others make that judgment.
-
40
Abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman insome off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.
1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?
the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Some more comments from a science professor friend (who has never been a Witness) .
sorry didn't mean to insult you just never heard of Ph.D. in evaluation and research. about god: there is no conclusive evidence against the possibility that the universe is the result of intelligent design. the inherent design flaws make it improbable however imo.
I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinions, but the opinion of someone who hasn't any experience in a field usually doesn't count for much to other people, and I don't know anybody who has designed a universe. To be a bit more serious, this response seems to indicate he's not considering a couple points. I don't know which "inherent design flaws" he's referring to, but it's quite possible that some of them are not inherent but entered the world through sin, at least indirectly, through man's rejection of God even though the original plan/design included more open and active participation by the Designer. Also, as many others, including evolutionist, have pointed out, there are many factors of the basic physical conditions and properties of the universe that have to be extremely close to their observed values for the universe to exist and a stable and interesting form, let alone support living and even intelligent creatures.
about the 400.000bp: as you said yourself there are environmental condition under which the number can be greatly reduced. under certain condition a primitve cell could be quite simple with no need for catabolic or anabolic activities. a nature article described the theoretical limit a while back. one can further assume that a cell didn't form out of nothing but that replicating systems existed already before a membrane etc. was added.
I haven't heard of any "environmental" conditions under which the complexity required for living thing can be reduced that isn't either artificial or the presence of a previous living thing. Nobody has yet demonstrated a genetically engineered creature that is extremely simplified and can live freely in a plausible natural environment. I believe Jon von Neumann (sp?) years ago calculated a theoretical limit to the number of parts a self-replicating machine would need, and as I recall, the absolute minimum was something like 400 parts. Of course, it would be only a couple of decades before they had a machine (computer) with human-level intelligence, and they are still saying that today, several decades later, so I may have been very optimistic about that as well. At any rate, I've never heard of any observation of discrete and diverse parts coming together to form interactive, organized system that converts energy from one form to another apart from a previous living thing. For that matter, I don't know of any other living things besides humans that can produce such phenomena, unless you want to count specially trained apes, and I don't recall hearing any cases of that, even. If one refuses to consider the possibility of an intelligent designer, one almost has to assume that the first life form assembled in piecemeal fashion, with various sub units forming separately and then somehow or other coming together in just the right way. Since nothing like this has ever been observed, however, this is merely an assumption out of desperation.
about the mechanisms: yes such calculations are done my scientists. however, if something appears impossible at first based on such calculations a scientist does not automatically assume that god was involved but that there are natural mechanisms at work that explain the result without the requirement of a miracle.
Scientists almost always study subjects that can be observed repeatedly within the natural world. The origin of life was not observed by any human, has not been replicated by any human, and there is no known natural process that is equivalent. Even the artificial "life forms" that we have succeeded in producing , such as computer viruses, are the work of intelligent designers. As far as that goes, the intelligent design component of the "God Hypothesis" does not require a miracle, simply the application of a known process. Therefore, in the case of the origin of life, the evolutionists are the ones looking for a "natural miracle" (a totally unknown and otherwise undesired "mechanism") and ignoring a process which is known to account for similar phenomena.
for instance no probability calculation about the formation of proteins includes the preference that exists during the formation of peptide bonds between certain aa. this is a review that talkes about this: ...
More wishful thinking and hand waving, based on a few simple chemicals that form on clays and also happen to exist in living microorganisms. These "oligomers" are so small that the probability calculations mentioned above do not apply to them. There is nothing terribly surprising about getting several heads in a row when you're flipping coins, but if somebody gets 100 in a row, it makes sense to suspect that someone has intelligently altered the conditions of the trial, or somehow you've accidentally used a two-headed coin. The problem is the exponential increase in improbability as the number of factors increase. Therefore, examples involving a few factors are irrelevant. Furthermore, while many creationist arguments along these lines deal with proteins as a starting point because the probability of their formation can be clearly and easily expressed in a quantifiable manner, this is still no more than a starting point. Likewise, theoretical estimates of the minimum number of genes required for a basic life form also come short of considering all the complex characteristics that would have to come together to produce such an organism. What all this amounts to, then, is nothing more than an expression of faith that God does not exist, or if he does, he never got involved with our universe except perhaps to set in motion some unknown process that produced life, even though no known process in nature has been observed to produce the same kind of complexity even to a much lesser degree.
-
40
Abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman insome off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.
1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?
the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).
-
-
Jerry Bergman
From what I've seen Dr. Bergman doesn't reach conclusions when it comes to the origins of life. He begins with the conclusion that the Genesis account is correct and then interprets the data based on that belief. What in the world makes you conclude this?? Certainly nothing that I said above. Actually, I started from the opposite conclusion and worked to where I am now.
-
40
Abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman insome off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.
1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?
the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).
-
-
Jerry Bergman
have you ever done a google search on "Ph.D. in evaluation and research" ? it seems he is the only one with a Ph.D. in that field! what is that anyway? Thousands of people have degrees in this area. At my school alone (almost 4000 students) several do>
has anyone told him that nobody claims that the first "living" organism (self replicating system) had a 400.000 bp genome? We are talking about the smallest possible living organism. Describe how a living organism with one gene or even two or three is possible and how it would do all the things required for life (to reproduce, produce ATP or somehow convert energy to useful forms, breakdown food and construct the parts needed for life. Then give experimental examples and proof.
i find such implications about the impossibility by probability always hilarious. one doesn'T know the mechanisms at work but one does a probability calculation! LOL These calculations were done by mainline scientists. Could you explain how the mechanism works from what we know about biochemistry.