backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by drycrust3.. on Dec 7 at 2:24 AM


  (Source: Matt Groening/Fox)
Crucial gene controls higher brain growth

To the uninformed observer it may seem baffling how geneticists, biochemists, paleontologists, and other researchers can claim that two creatures that look as different as a man and a monkey could not only be "related" but have been produced by evolution over the last couple million years.

I. It's All in the Genes

But the key to understanding evolution is to understand genetics: our body is driven by protein enzymes, which catalyze critical processes inside the body.  Many proteins share common domains.  And the blueprints to all the proteins a creature makes are stored in a special highly-ordered storage construct called DNA.

While living organisms go to great lengths to preserve their genetic code without errors like swapped sections or deletions, occassionally during the process of making sperm and eggs such an error is made.  Most errors result in infertility or death of the offspring.  But occasionally just the right combination of protein domains has accidentally been clumped together, producing something that fundamentally transforms the organism.

Researchers have finally found a gene -- perhaps the gene -- which separates humans from the ancestors they share with apes.

Humans and apes, both members of the order Primates, share 96 percent of their genetic code.  Most of the remaining 4 percent is so-called "junk" DNA; stretches of mostly inactive code.

Rhesus macaque
Humans share 96 percent of their genetic code with primates, like this Rhesus macaque monkey.
[Image Source: Mark Snelson]

Of course, junk DNA is not useless geneticists and biochemists have recently discovered.  It has been shown to in many cases play a key role in regulation of other genes' expression and other "epigenetic" effects.

But researchers had yet to discover a truly active gene that humans have that apes lack -- until now.

II. miR-941 May Hold the Key to How Mankind is so Crafty

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland have discovered a gene called miR-941, which is only found in humans and is absent in their primate relatives.

The gene was absent not only in the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but also in the genomes of other non-primates, such as mice and rats.  The gene, absent in all the other critters except for man, is mainly active in the brain; particularly in areas of the brain associated with so-called "higher brain" functions.  

The gene was actively being transcribed in the regions of the brain responsiible for language learning and decision making. Researchers hypothesize that it may play a key role in abilities that are largely unique to humans, such as formulating, understanding, and preserving multiple complex communications codes (languages) and developing advanced tools (weapons, machinery).

Human brain activity
The newly discovered human-unique gene is active in areas of the brain associated with higher thinking processes. [Image Source: Neuroimages Tumblr]

Some other creatures -- gorillas, parrots, dolphins, and whales -- show different levels of sign language or spoken/sung language skills.  And chimpanzees, octupi, and other creatures have been shown to use basic implements, like sticks, as tools.  However, only humans are known to manifest these helpful survival skills in more complex manners.

Now, modern genetics may have cracked a key mystery of human evolution and explained why.

The research was published in the prestigious peer-review journal Nature Communications.

Source: Nature Communications



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By heerohawwah on 11/23/2012 12:31:49 PM , Rating: -1
First off, human DNA and ape/chimp DNA is NOT 96% the same. The human genome project isn't anywhere near complete, let alone any primate so no comparison has ever been made. The crooked evolutionists how came up with the original 97% number, did a ridiculous experiment where they took human and Ape DNA and mixed them with a chemical which breaks the DNA into pieces. They then mixed the broken bits of DNA's together and added another chemical which works like a DNA glue. They then published their results saying the Human DNA is 97% the same as Ape DNA because roughly 97% of the DNA bits got stuck together. This is no different than running two different books through a paper shredder and then putting them in a paint shaker and adding paper glue. The only real conclusion you can make is that you can glue DNA to DNA and have DNA. The results were 'revised' to 96% because they couldn't even get there math right on that... these 'scientists' really should have been stripped of their credentials and are a mockery to science.
As for the rest of this article, is all BS. In fact I can't think of any evolutionist experiment that didn't have its conclusion already written before the experiment started. Evolution, as far a science is concerned is dead, it has no method, no evidence, not one single fact, not one law of nature or any other discipline of science that even makes it plausible. Super bugs are not evolving and are a result of selective breeding, mutations are a corruption of DNA not creation and no they don't give you super powers. If history tells us anything about evolution, it's that it is the go to belief of racist people, from Darwin's buddies chopping off people heads, to the KKK, to Eugenics and the Nazi's; if you want to justify the idea that you are better than everyone else, superior and above all those sub-humans (or sub-religions) , evolution is the choice for you. Too bad it's all a lie.




By TSS on 11/23/2012 1:01:52 PM , Rating: 5
Then again, we might need to redefine "higher brain functions"....


By Motoman on 11/23/2012 2:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you can probably test for it pretty easily..."Hey, do you believe in religion?" "Yes, why?" "Oh, no reason." [checks box for "no higher brain functions"]


By xthetenth on 11/24/2012 12:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
Explain how believing in only what is verifiably, repeatedly true is religion? Science is looking at the unknown, admitting it's unknown, and trying to find out enough about it and how it works to understand it while religion is just poring over the same book which is true because it says it is and stating that if we don't have an answer it's a mystery and therefore it was our invisible sky daddy that did it. Admit it, either you don't know what religion is or you're just too uncomfortable that people are perfectly capable of living happy, productive and ethical lives without the representatives of their invisible sky daddy telling them what to think. Also congrats on holding up a bunch of writers as paragons of intelligence and knowledge. As it turns out most scientists, who if religion were true would be the ones witnessing most of the divine mysteries are overwhelmingly atheist.


By retrospooty on 11/24/2012 1:28:02 PM , Rating: 2
Where have you been for the past 150 years? The "theory of evolution" was called that prior to it being proven, now that it has long since been proven, it is just called evolution, also called scientific fact. It's been proven many times over. Its not even a debate anymore. There are those that understand the true history of Earth and what happened here, and how life evolved and there are uneducated dorfs that cant accept reality. It's been proven time and time again. Its been proven int he 100's of thousands of fossils found all over hte earth, its been proven in our DNA, its been proven via geological evidence as well as archaeological evidence. It has also been witnessed as strains of germs develop resistances antibiotics. It is also proven in human skin color. The difference between black and white people is simply that white people skins lightened as they moved to less sunny environments to allow the body to get more vitamin D. The UV rays of the sun kill it and dark skin is a mutation to protect it. Skin color evolved to maintain the correct levels. There is no debate that evolution happened. We may not know how it started, and/or who started it or possibly created the laws of the universe that enabled it but we know it happened.

If you want to have a religious debate, it can be said that a god or whatever created the universe and the laws of physics that allowed evolution to happen. You could even debate that a god created evolution with humans in mind as the end result, but you CANNOT say that evolution didnt happen... It is absolutely 100% proven. IF you think it isnt you need to go back to school, because your bible college has lied to you and given you false talking points to try and discredit proven science.


By xthetenth on 11/24/2012 2:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
The key thing about evolution is that it is a proposed mechanism which inherently makes predictions about the world and those predictions have repeatedly shown themselves true.

Things like forests, where all the trees could save energy and nutrient intake by being shorter but each individual tree has an incentive to grow taller invariably show that the changes which increase individual fitness even at the cost of serious expense for the ecosystem as a whole are favored strongly. The competition between species where average individual success is rewarded rather than the good of the ecosystem as a whole is a major claim of the scientific theory of evolution and the myriad examples of it are evidence for it (I'm using scientific theory to distinguish "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment" from "a bunch of ideas they've been kicking around for a while").

The fossil record is another vital piece of evidence. A single evolutionary descendent that could be proven to have existed before its predecessor would discredit the whole theory. None so far have been found, but many, many "missing links" have been found (the missing link is a ridiculous concept because species are an artificial distinction applied to a gradual progression with no fixed beginning or end which is as ridiculous as trying to look at the gradient of all colors and trying to pick the precise wavelength at which light stops being red and starts being orange when the reddest orange and orangest red will be nearly indistinguishable).

A scientific theory is a proposed mechanism which explains why some things work the way they do and it makes predictions and those predictions must never be false. Otherwise it will cease to be a theory.


By Cheesew1z69 on 11/24/2012 7:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Evolution is as far as science is concerned is DEAD.
You really are an idiot aren't you? Evolution is real. There is nothing to debate about it. It's a FACT.

quote:
It has no basis and really only exists today as a religious fantasy.
Ummm...LOL


By retrospooty on 11/24/2012 7:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm starting to think now that your trolling. Because no 1 can be that incredibly and totally ignorant.claims made by scientists about evolution haven't been disproved, they support each other thousands and thousands and thousands of times over with collaborative data from fossil evidence , geological evidence, archaeological evidence and DNA evidence. Just because you're to mind numbingly ignorant to understand these things doesn't make them not true, it just makes you ignorant.and if you are just trolling, whatever that's almost equally ignorant. I really hope that you are trolling because it saddens me to think that people are really that dumb. your intellectual level has come nowhere for the past 2000 years. Proving that some of us evolve faster than others


By Cheesew1z69 on 11/24/2012 7:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because no 1 can be that incredibly and totally ignorant
Not true, there are a few on here that are. Won't name names though.


By retrospooty on 11/24/2012 7:52:39 PM , Rating: 1
You are probably right. Its ironic that those who are intellectually closer to apes than the rest of us are the ones that don't think we evolved from them. LOL


By Cheesew1z69 on 11/24/2012 7:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
Truth


By AntiM on 11/23/2012 1:28:33 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
...evolution is the choice for you. Too bad it's all a lie.


Is this guy serious, or is it a trolling expedition? I think I'll let this one pass, else I might find myself being reeled in.


By DeGhost on 11/23/2012 1:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree,
The truth is the Flying Spaghetti Monster create all things
Don't let those with logic and evidence cloud you,
They were set there by The Flying Spaghetti Monster to test your faith.

Stay strong brothers!!
Ramen


By Flunk on 11/23/2012 1:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
What's an "evolutionist", do you mean scientist? Most of what you've written here is nonsensical ramblings but I get the distinct feeling that you are under the misconception that evolution isn't the overwhelming scientific consensus here. At this point you would need an earth-shatteringly revolutionary discovery to disprove evolution at this point.


By ElConquistador on 11/23/2012 4:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The theory of Evolution has never been upgraded to a Law because it has never met the requirements, nor will it ever meet the requirements

And could you please enlighten us as to which those requirements would be?
I'm sure many physicists would like to know, so they can finally promote that stubborn Relativity thingie from Theory to LAW


By LRonaldHubbs on 11/23/2012 9:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I realise you don't think these have much to do with Relativity

WTF are you talking about? Both red shift (Doppler effect for light) and gravitational lensing are well-known phenomena described by Relativity. Why would anyone here not think that they have much to do with it?


By drycrust3 on 11/24/2012 12:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
... red shift (Doppler effect for light) and ... are well-known phenomena described by Relativity.

Is it? Thanks for the update, I was unaware that anyone else thought that pulsars were actually so distant galaxies that the light from them had red shifted to the point that the light had become microwaves, and that in the process the electromagnetic radiation fragmented into a series of pulses.


By drycrust3 on 12/4/2012 6:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
Just to let you know, if the cause of the red shift was gravitational red shifting, then I think that one can argue that c (as in the speed of light) isn't constant. It could be that what we see as star light has spent most of its time traveling through space as a radio wave, at much higher speeds than what we normally expect.


By drycrust3 on 11/25/2012 10:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
I did a search for images relating to gravitational lenses and found this website:
http://www.optcorp.com/edu/articleDetailEDU.aspx?a...
The interesting thing is all the images they show where light has bent due to the gravitational force of a mass are blue. I would have expected there to have been a range of colours, not just blue. This makes me think that there is something else happening here.


By drycrust3 on 12/4/2012 3:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
When I look at those Hubble pictures, it looks to me like gravitational lensing is quite common, and that the most popular colour is blue, and that multiple images of the same galaxy can occur.


By gladiatorua on 11/24/2012 3:39:22 AM , Rating: 3
Scientific theory can NOT be "upgraded" to a scientific law. RTFM(look up the descriptions)!
What you call a "theory" is actually a hypothesis. And with substantial proof it can become or be included into the theory. And hypothesis is not some shot in the dark. It has to have strong basis in reality and has to be disprovable.
SCIENTIFIC theories can not be upgraded or even proven. It's a body of work about phenomenon. It either works or it doesn't. Gravity, relativity, plate tectonics work. And evolution is a stronger theory than some of those.
quote:
In fact, we have people like Haeckel who fabricated evidence to try and prove the theory of Evolution was true.
Haeckel tried to prove his own hypothesis in the field of embryology, which is related to evolution but is not the same thing. Haeckel has nothing to do with credibility of the theory of Evolution.


By gladiatorua on 11/25/2012 9:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
His HYPOTHESIS - no.
He is usually mentioned.
If the book is any good he is either mentioned as a fraud or not mentioned at all.
And he published his drawings years after Darwin's work.
His REJECTED HYPOTHESIS was on embryology. His fraud was found out fast enough. Read the wiki.
As with most frauds the were somehow related to evolution, it's not the scientist that were fooled. Haeckel's book was aimed at general public. His "findings" spread like a wildfire and creationists got a powerful weapon and scientific community got the mess.


By xthetenth on 11/24/2012 3:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The theory of Evolution has never been upgraded to a Law because it has never met the requirements, nor will it ever meet the requirements.


A law is a statement based on repeated observation that describes an aspect of the natural world. It has no predictive power.

A theory is a statement based on repeated observation that explains an aspect of the natural world. It makes predictions about the rest of the natural world outside the observed circumstances.

Those are the scientific definitions of a law and a theory. Kindly note that a theory is stronger than a law. In fact, if a theory is proven false in some circumstances it will be downgraded to a law for the circumstances in which it is proven false. For example, if a god shows up and starts changing animal's genomes, the Theory of Evolution would probably become the Law of Natural Evolution.

The reason for the stronger statements with predictive power being labelled theories is because science is obsessed with being correct, and no predictive statement is entirely verifiable. Laws are laws because they make no prediction and are therefore entirely verifiable.

quote:
It isn't even a very good theory, it is actually a very poor theory because one of the main traits of a good theory is being able to make predictions, and especially predict important discoveries, prior to proof of that discovery. Darwin didn't predict DNA, nor, as far as I know, did any of his disciples.


This is entirely backwards as well. It is a very good theory because what it predicts has been shown in every single fossil discovered and in the anatomy of every living being on the planet. The anatomy of every living animal shows the signs of common ancestry and the changes from that common ancestor being driven by a mechanism where if the marginal cost of any change to the animal is a net negative it is more likely to be passed on to its descendents and become more prevalent until it becomes the norm. It didn't predict a mechanism because it didn't need to. It's a prediction of a pattern of development followed by all of biology. The mechanism by which animals are changed is irrelevant to a prediction of the pattern those changes will follow. I could just as easily say the Theory of Relativity is a bad theory because it doesn't predict or explain Higgs Bosons. However, the predictions it makes are all verifiable, and it explains some important things, such as the perihelion shift of Mercury.

quote:
In fact, we have people like Haeckel who fabricated evidence to try and prove the theory of Evolution was true. In 1976 I went took my science book to the school library and compared Haeckel's drawings to the photographs in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the fabrication was plainly evident! If a theory is credible, then why do you need to fabricate evidence?


In the case of Haeckel you need to fabricate evidence because you aren't trying to prove the theory of Evolution in that case, you're trying to prove the Biogenetic Law (which has since been falsified and is discussed in depth here: http://9e.devbio.com/article.php?id=219 ). Basically he was trying to prove that the development of an individual organism passes through stages represented by adult representatives of its evolutionary ancestors. Among other things he predicted a linear phylogeny rather than a branching one in the way Evolution does, and that isn't borne out by the evidence. He did popularize Evolution but his later work was bad and just so happened to be on an incorrect hypothesis.


By JPForums on 11/29/2012 11:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
It seems some people around are confused about what Scientific Theory and Scientific Law are as well as the purpose of each. Wikipedia does well enough for a basic refresher.

Scientific Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Scientific Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Scientific Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

quote:
A law is a statement based on repeated observation that describes an aspect of the natural world.
Yes.
quote:
It has no predictive power.
No. A law is demonstrable, always repeatable under the same conditions, and implies a cause effect relationship. Laws are constrained to the conditions under which they are observed. Laws applicability can be expanded when observed to be true under new conditions. If new data legitimately contradicts the law, it may be falsified. It has great predictive power in the sense that you can rely on the fact that if you affect the exact same conditions, the same result will occur. Otherwise the law would be falsified.

quote:
A theory is a statement based on repeated observation that explains an aspect of the natural world.
Yes.
quote:
It makes predictions about the rest of the natural world outside the observed circumstances.
No. Predictions are made based on the theory to test and verify the accuracy of the theory. Let me say that a different way. It has no predictive power. If you could affect the conditions of a theory and observe the result, thus demonstrating reliability, it wouldn't be a scientific theory. If observations are made that contradict the theory, it may be adapted to fit the new data or discarded for a theory that more closely fits the facts. Scientific theories are expected to change from their original conception.

Point of interest: Laws may be observed in the process of testing theories.

quote:
Kindly note that a theory is stronger than a law.
It's not. It is more comprehensive than Scientific Law, but it is also not both observable and repeatable; thus it is less reliable. It is therefore neither stronger nor weaker than Scientific Law. It simply serves a different purpose. Choose the tool appropriate to what you are trying achieve.
quote:
In fact, if a theory is proven false in some circumstances it will be downgraded to a law for the circumstances in which it is proven false.
No. No. No. If a scientific theory is contradicted, the theory is adapted to fit the new data or supplanted by a theory that more closely matches the currently available data. Scientific laws are observable and repeatable. Theories, whether true or false are not both observable and repeatable. They therefore cannot become a law unless for some reason they becomes so. Even then, it is more likely that a small portion of the scientific theory becomes a law or several laws as scientific theories are comprehensive, where scientific laws describe singular relationships. Furthermore, if anything is proven false, it fails the repeatable requirement. So a "false" scientific theory will never be "downgraded to law".

quote:
The reason for the stronger statements with predictive power being labelled theories is because science is obsessed with being correct.
Scientist have an obsession with explaining the world around them. I've seen far more excitement over contradictory observations from scientists than another run of supporting observations as it generally means they've found something new. As a side note, a real scientist will adapt theories to support facts rather than adapt facts to support theories.
quote:
Laws are laws because they make no prediction and are therefore entirely verifiable.
Scientific law starts out as a scientific hypothesis or in other words a testable explanation for a phenomenon. To be testable, you have to be able to define what results would prove or disprove the explanation. You are, therefore, making a prediction that may be proved true or false (true in the case of scientific law). It is not prediction that separates scientific law from scientific theory. It is observability and repeatability.
quote:
It is a very good theory because what it predicts has been shown in every single fossil discovered and in the anatomy of every living being on the planet.
It is actually a very bad theory in its current form as it selectively ignores a preponderance of data. To give a few examples: The fact that measurable levels of carbon14 has been found in fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of million years old. The fact that the supposedly immutable radio radiometric dating methods result in vastly different aging for rocks that should be similarly aged in the grand canyon. The fact that the criteria Darwin himself proposed by which the theory of evolution could be contradicted was actually observed in several places (I'll mention the Flagella). These are just a few of the holes in the Theory of Evolution. Nonetheless, the strength of a scientific theory is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to the phenomena it tries to explain. The fact remains that competing theories fail in regards to making falsifiable predictions with which they may be tested.


By AppleMaggot on 11/23/2012 2:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you managed to Godwin this thread just two comments in! Congratulations!


By Ringold on 11/23/2012 5:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
Not surprised, but still disappointed that the majority of comments on this centered on the old religionistas vs atheists battle. Was hoping for more insight on the science.

Naive of me, I know :P


By inperfectdarkness on 11/23/2012 8:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
Athiests are religious---they just don't subscribe to intangibles and the supernatural. Ask Leonard Peikoff.


By Ringold on 11/25/2012 7:43:56 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, I know, and they'll pretend to be open-minded and tolerant, yet turn in to the worlds most arrogant bigots if you have a different opinion. I know it.


By Retrospotting on 11/23/2012 7:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your ignorance is strong.


By Cheesew1z69 on 11/24/2012 7:10:24 PM , Rating: 1
You really shouldn't talk about ignorance Pirks, you are about the most ignorant fuckwad on this site.


By geekman1024 on 11/23/2012 9:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
You are a lucky one, you live a blissful life.


By FastEddieLB on 11/23/2012 10:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not even going to bother reading your post because the headline tells me everything I need to know about you:

You are narrow-minded.

Not because you are religious, but because you refuse to believe the possibility that evolution is the answer to how, but not the answer to why. The two ideas of God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive and do fit together, provided you have the open mind to accept it.

People who dismiss God and similar theistic concepts due to absence of evidence are just as narrow-minded as those who dismiss science because of imagined conflicts with their religious beliefs. After all, nobody believed the world was round for a long time because there was no evidence of it.


By xthetenth on 11/24/2012 1:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Why shouldn't someone dismiss god due to lack of evidence? There's a huge difference between believing something doesn't exist due to lack of evidence (which is effectively trying to prove a negative) and believing that since something has no observable effect on any of the universe that it is of inconsequential importance and there's no reason to include it in your view of the cosmos. Occam's Razor is a pretty good guiding principle here. It doesn't matter what's lurking out there in the unexplained gaps until it does something, and in doing something it gives us measurements to discern its nature from. Until then there isn't much point guessing. Sure, denying the possibility is narrow-minded, but believing in one specific theistic explanation as a major component of your worldview and denying the infinite other possibilities is even more narrow-minded because it's adding terms to the equation where the net effect of those terms has to be zero and it's insisting that one specific answer is the right one. What if there's something extra and it just so happens to be the one that I am invested in rings pretty hollow as a line of reasoning.

Just so you know, the Greeks had pretty good estimates for the circumference of the Earth. Look up Eratosthenes. He calculated a remarkably accurate value for the circumference of the earth and for the axial tilt of the Earth. Equally important to what you're saying, he tried to calculate the circumference of .the Earth.

Once people had the basic geometric tools to reason about such things, they discovered them rapidly. Such is the progression of all science and technology. Discover something about the workings of the universe, and derived knowledge follows quickly


By drycrust3 on 11/24/2012 7:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just so you know, the Greeks had pretty good estimates for the circumference of the Earth. Look up Eratosthenes. He calculated a remarkably accurate value for the circumference of the earth and for the axial tilt of the Earth. Equally important to what you're saying, he tried to calculate the circumference of .the Earth.

You are right, the work of Eratosthenes is amazing. According to Wikipedia he calculated the earth as about 25000 miles in circumference, while modern measurements say it is 24909. To get that close with the numbering system he was using and that all the maths was done the long way is an amazing feat, but did you know the Bible contains a feat of mathematical precision is actually even more incredible? In fact this feat would have left Eratosthenes astounded. True!
Did you know that someone calculated the number of days from the issuing of the decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem by Artaxerxes Longimanus to the day when Jesus rode the donkey into Jerusalem was exactly 173880 days?. "So what" you say. "That isn't anywhere near as good as what Eratosthenes did". The big difference is this person did it IN ADVANCE, i.e. they calculated the number of days BEFORE even the decree was issued! No, I'm not kidding, this person calculated that 173880 days after the issuing of the decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem which the Babylonians had destroyed Jesus would ride the donkey into Jerusalem. The decree was issued about 169 years before the birth of Eratosthenes. After doing the calculations, the person sent his most important messenger to the prophet Daniel with the results in his writings that have come to us from antiquity.
Here is the link for you to look at:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/46/
p.s. the person I elude to as "the person" is God.


By retrospooty on 11/25/2012 1:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
At least, that is how it was written after the fact. Then milled over and changed by teams of control freaks at the Vatican before finally "canonized" into what we know as the bible today.

I find the bible nothing but a joke. If you aren't in agreement, I beg you to go read the old testament again. The god described there isn't some all powerful all knowing being that created us all. The god described in the bibles old testament is childish, petty, jealous and vengeful. A true picture into the mind of the primitive uneducated men that wrote the book.


By drycrust3 on 11/25/2012 9:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least, that is how it was written after the fact.

How can something be written after the fact when the main language used changed about 200 years before the birth of Jesus? You didn't read the link that I included, which gives very good reasons why what I said was correct.
I'm sure you would blindly accept the first writer's bit about Eratosthenes without any hesitation, yet the Book of Daniel is one of the most thoroughly attested documents to come to us from that time in antiquity and you don't believe it?


By retrospooty on 11/26/2012 7:05:45 AM , Rating: 2
Written, re-written, re-rewritten and re-re-re-rewritten, then mulled over , picked apart and re-packaged.


By elderwilson on 11/26/2012 10:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot to add translated, re-translated, and re-re-translated. Anyone who speaks more than one language knows how even one translation can completely change the meaning.

This is not to say that the collection of independent works commonly known as the Bible is without value, you just have to understand what you are reading and where it comes from.


By retrospooty on 11/26/2012 11:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly... If you are looking for it, it has some wisdom and real life value and morality and all that, but it is NOT anything of a history of life on planet Earth, and how it came to be.


By Wolfpup on 11/29/2012 9:45:13 AM , Rating: 1
LOL I can not believe there's someone reading a tech/science site that rejects science.

Did you have your secretary transcribe your ridiculous comments from from your pad of paper? Or is paper too advanced for you too?


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki