Despite all the amazing scientific advances of the past few centuries there is still a heck of a lot that we don't know, especially about ourselves. First up is a really remarkable new study that has completely revolutionized our understanding of genetics.
The discovery has astonished scientists studying the human genome - the genetic recipe of man. Until now it was believed the variation between people was due largely to differences in the sequences of the individual " letters" of the genome.It now appears much of the variation is explained instead by people having multiple copies of some key genes that make up the human genome.
Until now it was assumed that the human genome, or "book of life", is largely the same for everyone, save for a few spelling differences in some of the words. Instead, the findings suggest that the book contains entire sentences, paragraphs or even whole pages that are repeated any number of times.
The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought - which could explain why some people are prone to serious diseases.
One consequence that the article underplays is that this discovery now makes it possible, for the first time, to determine a person's "race" or "ethnicity" based on their DNA. What's more,
Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are more likely to be about 96 per cent similar.
Thereby striking another blow against evolution (which will probably go completely unnoticed until the entire edifice crumbles). As I said, there's a lot we don't know, and it's continually surprising how much of what we think we know turns out to be wrong or only partially right. Makes life interesting!
Secondly, some high-definition pictures of animals in the womb.
An unborn elephant, tiny but perfect in every way. A dolphin swimming in the womb, just as it will have to swim in the ocean the moment it is born. An unborn dog panting. Each one amazing and now, thanks to these remarkable pictures, they can be seen for the first time.Using an array of technology, the images reveal what until now has been a secret - exactly how animals develop in the womb. They were created by the same team who in 2004 showed how human embryos "walk in the womb".
Using a combination of three-dimensional ultrasound scans, computer graphics and tiny cameras, the team were able to show the entire process from conception to birth.
"These kind of images from inside animals have never been seen before," said Jeremy Dear of Pioneer Productions, who made the film.
These sorts of pictures will eventually overcome the ocean of blood money that keeps the abortion industry afloat.
"Animals were trained to sit still near the scanners and we also inserted cameras into the womb via the elephant's rectum-But it has been worth it. It one sequence we follow an elephant developing. When it is finally born, there is not a dry eye in the house.
Wait for the same movie to be made of a human baby. The whole debate on abortion is undergoing a sea-change as our scientific knowledge of what goes on in the womb advances. Those of our children who survive will likely live in a world that recognizes abortion as the barbarity it is.
Update:
I like James Taranto's take on the in utero pictures:
The unborn elephant, shown at the link, is quite something to see. By contrast, as we all know from reading the newspapers, there is no such thing as an unborn human being. We develop by a little-understood process in which a clump of cells, similar to a tumor or a fingernail, miraculously becomes a baby at the moment the entire clump is exposed to air.That humans and animals come into the world in such radically different ways pretty much demolishes the notion that we are the product of Darwinian evolution, doesn't it?
MW said: "Thereby striking another blow against evolution ... "
How so? We're all humans, increase genetic dissimilarity or not.. and going from 99% similarity with chimpanzees to 96% is hardly a blow to evolution.
The 'fact' that genetic differences between chimps and humans was so small WAS one of the 'duh' arguments in favor of evolution. You'd be lying to say it was not used as evidence in favor of evolution. So a reduction in the similarity plays against evolution. If the percentage similarity has nothing to do with the argument, then talk to your betters about it. The rest of us have all read the propaganda in favor of evolution and we've seen how this supposed similarity between chimps and humans has been used. A similarity that is fast slipping away as we learn more and more.
"plays against evolution" is quite a bit different from "striking a blow against evolution".
I bet that everything we once thought was nearly genetically identical is actually a bit less genetically identical, not just chimps and humans. In the aggregate, does that really disprove the concept of evolution? I doubt it.
Well, since we're bickering over semantics, 'Striking a blow against' does not mean 'disprove evolution' either, so you're arguing against a point that was never made in the first place.
I'm sorry, poor choice of words. Put in "strike a blow against" and take out "disprove".
I initially said "disprove" because I know MW and most other readers/posters here don't think evolution is how we humans came to be (or even a possibility to be seriously considered).. and that this story was being offered as evidence to support that belief.
MW / Dallas: Seriously guys, trying to tell the world the theory of evolution is an "edifice about to crumble" displays nothing but a startling lack of education and a surprising pride in that lack.
Working out that the similarity between chimps and humans is a couple of percentage points more than first thought does not crumble the whole edifice - any more than working out the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years instead of (at one time) maybe 20 billion means the whole age edifice will crumble and it's only a matter of time before we see it is actually only 6000 years.
Fossil discoveries suggest the time of "branching" b/w human and chimp ancestors was perhaps further back than we first thought too. A little more difference is almost expected under those circumstances.
Evolutionary mechanisms and processes are better understood today than gravity is. No-one considers the theory of gravity to be an "edifice about to crumble".
Have an opinion, sure - but please make it an informed one.
"Have an opinion, sure - but please make it an informed one."
I am quite informed, thank you very much. I read both sides of the discussion. I've even read material in support of the speed of light being a variable over time. And its rebuttal.
I got great grades in biology in HS and college. And I can spout the evolution nonsense like every other educated person should be able to do. But that doesn't mean I BELIEVE in it. I have no FAITH that it is true. I am open the alternate explanations, as any reasonable person should be.
As such, I can correctly see when data plays in favor or against the theory of evolution. And this data is firmly in the 'against' category.
Disprove? Crumbling edifice? I don't know about that.
Again, I ask, how so? How does this data play against the theory of evolution? As I said, everything is probably less genetically similar than we once thought. If everything is less genetically similar, how can any overall explanation (like evolution) be any less valid of a theory? The genetic similarity between certain species was used as evidence in support of evolution. The demonstration of how this similarity is not quite as strong as it was once believed to be doesn't play against evolution.. it plays against the concept of genetic similarity being evidence of or a significant factor in evolution.
I don't believe the opponents of evolution have any evidence in favor of their contentions. Their main error consists in the straw man argument that those who accept evolution are denying the existence of God. They may be denying any or all religions (in my view, fantasies all) but that isn't the same thing.
It's a mighty small God that couldn't have created us by means of evolution. I keep in mind that the opponents of evolution aren't defending God, just their own parochial doctrines.
I've found that the people who support evolution the loudest know the least about it. The people who actually study it are usually very careful in what they claim, because they know that they don't really know that much about it.
Andrew: "Evolutionary mechanisms and processes are better understood today than gravity is."
That's a bizarre statement. See, gravity we can test going forward, and we can describe and predict its behavior with high precision. Evolution is not testable, nor is it even falsifiable.
Brett, you are incorrect in your suppositions about what opponents of evolution believe. My main objection to evolution is logical and mathematical, not theological. Read some Dembski or Behe, or read my post on the subject.
Ben--
Perhaps incorrect in your case, but my generalization still pertains.
Without generalization, by the way, conversation is impossible.
Brett: "Without generalization, by the way, conversation is impossible."
I agree. You're welcome to generalize. I think that your particular generalization just happens to be wrong. There are a great many reasons to be skeptical about evolution as understood by its non-scientist supporters. But to understand those reasons, you first must disengage from the larger, noisier, uglier cultural battle.
Among the specialists, I've found very little difference between the two sides. Both agree that evolution occurs, and we have no idea how it occurs. The only dispute is on the label that we give our ignorance.
It's like scientists from 200 years ago arguing over whether the Sun is on fire. The only correct was: "We don't know." I think that's the answer we should give for evolution, too.
Ben, I am confident the majority of the deniers of evolution do so from religious motivations.
Brett, I am confident that the majority of evolution's supporters do so from religious motivations.
No, I'm serious. The zeal of evolution's defenders comes primarily from atheistic zealotry. If people didn't believe that proving evolution would disprove the existence of God, then there wouldn't be nearly as much interest on either side.