15 Dec 05
Originally posted by windmilla) yeah, it's a serious problem with current breeding programs for Jaguars (i think, def one of the big cats), because all the Jaguars today are derived from genetic relations. By Junk satellite, I assume you mean 'junk' DNA, a bit of an anamoly and I think a complete misnomer...
a)Through science this is what is believed would happen now under those same circumstances.If it did happen and then happened again then the results would be different again.Your judging this on the little we have and know today...instead of the time back then(that we know even less).Mabey this is why brothers/sisters could have children and
we lived a lo ...[text shortened]... prob. went back where it came from.
Hmmmm.also sorry i guess. 🙂
b) Seeds. Not all plants produce seeds, only the angiosperms do. Many (extant) species would go extinct.
c) maybe the land did move. maybe god did drop them off. Maybe none of it is true.
d) water came from inside the earth. I thought hell was in there???
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not aware of any passage before the Flood that indicates that some of the vegetarian animals became carnivores. It is possible that this was part of the Curse. On the other hand, right after the Flood, God tells Noah and his kids that the animals will be filled with dread of them and that they should eat animals, but it doesn't mention animals eating meat. Maybe some of the animals became carnivores then. Who knows?
I thought all animals were vegetarians before Adam's sin? By the time of the Ark there were carnivores because of Adam, weren't there?
Either way, it's a fundie response that I've heard before (maybe from KJ?), so I thought I'd throw it out there.
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionThere seems to be some dispute; see Halitose's and KellyJay's posts in this thread. http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=31993&page=4
I'm not aware of any passage before the Flood that indicates that some of the vegetarian animals became carnivores. It is possible that this was part of the Curse. On the other hand, right after the Flood, God tells Noah and his kids that the animals will be filled with dread of them and that they should eat animals, but it doesn't mention animals eatin ...[text shortened]... fundie response that I've heard before (maybe from KJ?), so I thought I'd throw it out there.
15 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnza)I did some bridging courses at Waikato university a few years ago and we got taught that 'junk' DNA had basicly little purpose.What is it's purpose?
a) yeah, it's a serious problem with current breeding programs for Jaguars (i think, def one of the big cats), because all the Jaguars today are derived from genetic relations. By Junk satellite, I assume you mean 'junk' DNA, a bit of an anamoly and I think a complete misnomer...
b) Seeds. Not all plants produce seeds, only the angiosperms do. ...[text shortened]... aybe none of it is true.
d) water came from inside the earth. I thought hell was in there???
b)Pass.
c)I got brought up in a Christian environment where believing in what Christians do is something that you get taught to believe in.In science this same perspective applies...you also get taught to believe in what you do which holds vast differences as non-Christians have built most of what science is today.Many things in science won't have any answers yet we still believe it exists.Molecules>Atoms>Electrons>courps(i think)>?>?>infinty...life still exists...and it still gets study.Why do these same laws reject the flood.
d)lol.
....I heard someone ring up on the radio there was a tornado in P.N. yesterday.I live bout 3/4 hr. away....Whag.Lightning,thunder....cool!
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by windmillYeah, the whole thing with 'Junk' DNA is that t doesn't seem to 'do' anything, mainly just broken copies of genes. Now, like everything it takes energy to copy DNA, so why does evolution put up with it? Now, lets imagine that all DNA in the cell is coding DNA; any (negative) mutation would be lethal. Positive mutations are rare, but they must happen (if evolution is correct). If 10% of the genome was non-coding (i.e. junk) then there would be a 10% chance of that mutation hitting a 'junk' part, and having no effect. Now, about 95% of DNA is non-coding, which infers that 95% of mutations will not hit a gene and affect the organisms survival. If the mutation hits a piece of junk DNA and gets a non-functional gene to do something, and that 'something' is of positive benefit to the organism then it's all good.
a)I did some bridging courses at Waikato university a few years ago and we got taught that 'junk' DNA had basicly little purpose.What is it's purpose?
b)Pass.
c)I got brought up i ...[text shortened]... e was a hurricane in P.N. yesterday.I live bout 3/4 hr. away....Whag.Lightning,thunder....cool!
Basically junk DNA has a cost (of copying) which prevents the genome getting too long, but it also has a benefit of improving the organisms chances of survival. But, really, this is just my idea.
Yeah, we sure don't have all the answers in science - I wish we did, except I'd be out of a job! Personally, I feel the best thing you can have as a scientist is huge amount of self doubt. I always doubt that I've done things right, so I tend to redo them several times, until I get some confidence that my results are correct. Of course, in science you need some belief too, but that tends to be belief in other people, that they are competent and they're not falisfying results. For example, a few years back when the GM debate got started a scientist (I think at St Andrews) did a trial that showed that GM potatoes were bad for rats. Unfortunately, he had been feeding the rats only potatoes whilst the control rats were getting a balanced diet! He was, of course, found out and discredited. So science isn't perfect, and i'd happily take anyone to task who tried to say it was, but it is also the best way we've got in alot of cases to explain the world we inhabit in a logical, reasoned manner. We're getting better.
Yeah, we had some pretty mean weather yesterday. Thunder storms in the afternoon, and it rained all night, but that was fine with me - I got a great nights sleep without all the humidity!
16 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat's interesting...the 'junk' DNA.I wonder if it could be possible for some mutations within the 'junk'DNA to cross over into the coding DNA throughout life...If so then certain mutations already present in the half of each parents junk 'DNA' could have an affect on their children.Do you think this is poss?
Yeah, the whole thing with 'Junk' DNA is that t doesn't seem to 'do' anything, mainly just broken copies of genes. Now, like everything it takes energy to copy DNA, so why does evolution put up with it? Now, lets imagine that all DNA in the cell is coding DNA; any (negative) mutation would be lethal. Positive mutations are rare, but they must ha ...[text shortened]... ined all night, but that was fine with me - I got a great nights sleep without all the humidity!
16 Dec 05
Originally posted by windmillTheoretically yes.
That's interesting...the 'junk' DNA.I wonder if it could be possible for some mutations within the 'junk'DNA to cross over into the coding DNA throughout life...If so then certain mutations already present in the half of each parents junk 'DNA' could have an affect on their children.Do you think this is poss?
However, it would require to be transferred into a gene during 'crossing over' when the chromosomes in you of both the parents (your parents) swap genetic information in the production of your gametes. The chances of that happening, and producing a functional gene isn't really likely.
Nowadays, the genome is a pretty streamlined machine, because all organisms are co-evolving we've got some pretty spiffy biochem in there to deal with microbes that are constantly evolving to [kill] us. Like an arms-race. A couple of billion years ago, when competition was a bit less intense it'd be more likely because imperfect proteins could be tolerated provided they didn't kill the organism. The ability to deal with imperfect proteins could be good because it'd give variation that would allow divergence of species etc.
Nowadays the genome is pretty integrated, so the answer to your question is 'hypothetically, yes, practically, probably not'.
Regards,
Louis
p.s. how was the head the other day?
16 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGentile is a word that translates the Hebrew word for a non-Jew, so if there weren't no Jews, there wasn't any Gentiles neither. What was Noah again?
At the time of the Flood, there were no Jews.
Noah was Gentile.
"Christian translators of the Bible use this word in the meaning of non-Israelite, to collectively designate the peoples and nations distinct from the Israelite people; the word is used that way over 130 times in the King James Version of the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments."
16 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI also pulled up 'heathen' or 'pagan'. I thought heathen fitted best with my joke though....
Gentile is a word that translates the Hebrew word for a non-Jew, so if there weren't no Jews, there wasn't any Gentiles neither. What was Noah again?
"Christian translators of the Bible use this word in the meaning of non-Israelite, to collectively designate the peoples and nations distinct from the Israelite people; the word is used that way over 130 times in the King James Version of the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments."