Jerry, 98% - 95%... what's the difference? The point is we are all based on DNA, humans and animals. Is that just coincidence? We are based on DNA, so are the animals. If we were some special creation, why were we based on animals DNA?
Are humans simply intelligent animals?
by JH 41 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Realist
Jerry,
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.
Research has found that the number one turn off in men is obesity, and now over 60 percent of American women are overweight.
this is only true for todays society. have you ever seen a rembrandt painting? or the Venus of Villendorf ? obesity was long viewed as something positive.
also many woman get obese only after they have children. but than its too late for selection
-
minimus
RUFFF RUFFF (bark, bark, as in doggie)
-
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). -
Jerry Bergman
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
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 as the number one sexual turnoff (and women do as well). Also, the obesity problem is a critical issue with teenagers and younger children today (and it is also a major cause of death. Fat kills, and the problem is so bad that it now kills more people than smoking, the second leading killer in USA)
-
Jerry Bergman
Jerry, 98% - 95%... what's the difference? This is a big difference (a difference of a single base pair can be lethal). And a few genes can make a big difference.
-
DanTheMan
I know of no zoos that don't feature a large primate exhibit as one of their main attractions. I think we are fascinated with monkeys, gorillas, and the like because our intuition tells us that they really are not very different from us. I certainly see something very close to human when I look into these eyes:
-
hippikon
Since man is very different from animals
Thats a mater of opinion.
Dan the man : Please remove my picture from your thread. It is copyright and you don't have my writen permision to pubishit.
-
Abaddon
tyydyy;
That's almost the same thing that I said.
I thought it might just be semantics.
I do agree with you on the technological issue but how do you explain the social advances? Is that merely due to the technological advances?
In large part. Basically society 200 years ago was based upon sets of morals and codes of law that were supposedly provided by one form of god or an other. There certainly were people who had no belief in god, or a more individual deistic belief, but for the vast majority some discrete form of god (with associated scripture) had the say.
Many social changes have come about due to the loss of belief and the change of belief that has happened due to scientific advances. Many more people now have no belief in god, are agnostic, or have some personal form of deism. Many, even if they have a belief in a traditional conception of god, have felt that the exact details of ancient sacred scripture are as liable to the erosions of time and the inventions of man as any much-copied document. They have accepted modern science’s explanation for existence and history, seeing god more in the light of a plate spinner (one who keeps it all going and controls it) than a potter (who makes it and bakes it and is done). They keep their faith as they look to the truth they find in the principles they live by, rather than to a simplistic literal belief in, say, creation myths that seem to be heavily shackled to the knowledge of the world that the human writer of those myths had.
Just as the writers of scripture had their ‘scientific’ understanding shaped by the culture they grew up in, so to was it realised that the morals of the writers were similarly enculturated. Any moral codes they produced, although perhaps meant to be their interpretation of god’s will, are very obviously influenced by the culture they spring from, new thoughts from neighbouring cultures, and a strong sense of pragmatism when it came to imposing change on the peoples it reached out to. The adoption and absorption of pagan festivals by Christianity, and the retention of polygamy by Mohammed are good examples of this.
This freed people from a literalistic interpretation of scripture with regard science and cultural mores, as it was demonstrably NOT god’s word, but just the writings of believers. It meant that the role religion played in the West, as part of the fabric of society, changed. No longer was the clear recompense for those less fortunate in the hereafter so clear. People became more concerned about justice in their lifetimes. Patriarchy (etc.) was no longer god’s word, but men’s (sic) words.
People were free to challenge the status quo free of divine recrimination. Kings and Queens no longer had a steady job, or even a head (if we stretch your 200 years a bit).
Social change is like a snowball too. Once women began to have a political voice, the political agenda began to change. Once everyone over 21 had the vote, regardless of colour, things began to change. Once the voting age went down to 18, things again changed. And that’s just the snowball effect of changes in voting rights; think of the change in the structure of society wrought by divorce being accepted and wide spread.
Proof of this can be seen in the developed world; generally speaking major social reforms are only possible once the local religion is removed from prominence, as it is that religion that is keeping them in place (or often in the case of women, it is ‘keeping them in their place’). The cultural differences between Europe and much of the Islamic world, and the less prominent cultural differences between Europe and America, are largely due to different levels of religious belief.
Physically I know it isn't possible to change in a couple thousand years. Or is it? With the advances in medicine, haven't we changed natural selection? Some would say that we are degrading the species by helping the weak survive and reproduce.
The forces of natural selection and sexual selection are obviously still felt to some extent by humans, but the losers are far more likely to survive and breed, whereas before they would have been Smilodon toothpicks. But people with ‘bad genes’ are more likely to die of disease or not flourish. People still attract mates with their display of physical health (all the things humans regard as signs of beauty are health linked) and with their competence as a hunter-gatherer displayed by the contents and location of their caves. Because we have sapient brains, competence and desirability can be based on far more factors than a rabbit’s mate selection can, but they are still there.
Essentially though, for the great majority of man there is no evolution taking place, as there isn’t enough selection pressure. Whether 'un'natural selection in the form of genetic engineering will play any role in our future evolution is speculative at this stage; at this stage we're at the primative level of genetic selection in a minute number of cases. Mostly we're good old fashioned chromosone cocktails.
I think in the next few decades the Great Apes, whales and dolphins, elephants and maybe some other animals will be granted some interim state. We are animals, but are smart enough (I hope) to realise that there are a few species who are deserving of a little more consideration than, say goats. The Great Apes have culture, as do dolphins and some whales thus far studied, and culture is a sign of intelligence and communication. If we ever get to communicate, we may find out that a football obsessed guy still talks about football less than a dolphin talks about fish; communication won’t necessarily be that interesting in the long term.
Hi Jerry, you ask
Just curious, do you know of any empirical evidence for sexual selection in humans??
Empirical evidence?
Well, it's not empirical, but I can think of Supermodels with ugly old INSANELY RICH POWERFUL MEN? The fact that couples are normally comprised of people with an equal level of attractiveness (when assessed separately by third parties)? Make up, bras, expensive watches? Hourglass shapes with a 0.7 waist to hip ratio and wide shoulders?
Tell me what you’d like to see to have sexual selection proved to you.
If you examine the content of your underwear and compare if to Great Apes, the difference in size you see (one hopes) is (possibly) very nicely explained by sexual selection. We don’t ‘need’ a penis that big; gorillas have a 1” penis, and that would be enough. We men have a lot to thank women for; it is quite likely that the fact larger penises are more fun leads to sexual selection BY WOMEN. Males with more enjoyable tackle got to have sex more often, and their baby boys had their dad’s big willy style genes. Mix in a looooong time, and bing! Big willies. Of course, you might argue that that is Intelligent Design and an example of god’s loving provision of sexual pleasure, but I’d probably then ask you questions about hyena clitori that I really don’t think you could answer.
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.
See above comment about couples tending to be with someone of the same level of attractiveness. Consider how many American men are overweight. And realise sexual selection is not about yes or no, it is about saying yes to the best that would say yes to you. This and monogamy explain who overweight people have no problem finding partners. Some might even be normal weight or thin, but statistics alone determine that if you have a large percentage of men and women overweight most often they will be together. Obesity as a modern social disease has little to do with evolution really; it's like linking the deletrious effects of lead in face whitening make-up favoured by the upper classes in Europe in the 17th/18th C to evolution. You can do it if you like, but with what FACTS can you back the linkage up?
