Yuku free message boards

Drcal wrote:

---

The reviews of this article on the internet are a bit confusing because they do not clearly state what "genetically identical" really means. This is what the original article, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America, says about "genetically identical."

"Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrcaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population."

Thus, it is in mitochondrial DNA, not in chromosomal DNA, that the two populations of lizards were seen do be indistinguishable. The conclusion to be drawn from this bit of evidence is only that the population on the second island originated from the population on the first island. Mitochondrial DNA is quite conservative and changes very slowly, despite rapid changes that may be occurring simultaneously in chromosomal DNA.

Now does this rapid change in body structure and food choice really indicate evolution? Despite the fact that the authors continually use the term evolution to describe what they have observed, they have not definitively established that as the case. It is known that some individual birds change their gut length and complexity in a matter of days when they switch from a fruit diet to an insect diet, so dramatic changes in morphology can occur quickly in some animals, without of course any genetic changes. Although it is quite likely that the changes observed in these lizards are indeed evolutionary, the authors still felt it necessary to issue this warning in their paper.

"Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed."

Thus, without a genetic analysis of the genes involved in these changes in body structure and food choice, one cannot definitively establish that such changes are evolutionary rather than just phenotypic plasticity.

You are making my point.

Basically, all animals could have been eating vegetation before the Flood of Noah's day then some, switched to eating meats afterward.

AND it could have taken place within one generation.

Thanks for discussing this.

I haven't had much time for more than hit-and-run posting.

jeff wrote:

---

Basically, all animals could have been eating vegetation before the Flood of Noah's day then some, switched to eating meats afterward.
AND it could have taken place within one generation.

this sounds easily testable to me. all one would have to do is take a group of herbivores (like cows, say) and put them on a diet of meat. they should quickly adopt this phenotypic plasticity, and you'd have carnivorous cows within a generation, right?

on another note, why do you pick the flood as the point of time for this change and not the fall? gen. 4 says that abel was a 'keeper of sheep' - why keep sheep if you're not going to eat them and they have no natural enemies?

Your first idea is backwards, jeff, God never turned cows into meat eaters, ever......and you know that.

Badsidhe wrote:

---

jeff, don't forget that God loves the smell of burning animal flesh. Having a ready stock of sacrifices seems a good idea.

Your first idea is backwards, jeff, God never turned cows into meat eaters, ever......and you know that.

Yeah jeff, the cows decided to be turned into meat eaters on their own:

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSSP25712220070307

When we started creating cattle feed as cheaply as we could we added animal protein to it, the parts we couldn't sell to humans for food. Basically, cattle will eat protein from any source, and, if they are fed poorly enough, they will try to get that needed protein any way they can before starving to death..

As to that one animal which killed chickens, wow! (But was it documented, or could a human have stolen the chickens and simply tried to shift the blame to the cow?)

As to the rest of cattle kept by men, we got a new disease as a result of our cheap animal protein going into cows' feed......BSE, commonly called mad cow disease. You simply cannot grind up sheep's brains and feed them to cattle forever without some bad effect when scrapie (the same disease as BSE only in sheep) is so common in sheep.

Do you eat hamburger?

1 pound of hamburger can include the flesh of as many as 300 old dairy cows.

All my beef comes from Australia and is grass fed, never feed lot fattened, never commercial feed at all.

Badsidhe wrote:

---

In your opinion, why do animals (and humans) crave eating animal flesh?

In my opinion, humans were able to perfectly obtain all the nutrients they needed from vegetation before the Flood.

After the Fall in Eden they had children no more ''perfect'' than themselves....and getting further from perfection with each generation.

By the time Noah and his extended family left the ark humans would need animal protein for their own health as a result of the first harsh seasons on the planet.

God evened the playing field by putting some ''fear of man'' into most animals.

I have a younger brother who is a nurse and nutritionist.

He pointed out to me, years ago, how easily beans and rice can be converted into all the proteins we need by the addition of lemon/lime juice and heat. Some people (like Hispanics) already figured that out.

Did early humans figure that out, too?

Maybe, but probably not universally or - in some cases - for centuries.

I think that most here are only Bible skeptics, not really God skeptics. (It is so easy to criticize the Bible, not so worry-free to criticize, say, the koran).

Badsidhe wrote:

---

In my opinion, humans were able to perfectly obtain all the nutrients they needed from vegetation before the Flood

Were plants no longer able to produce these nutrients that humans needed? What was the rate of decline in these plant-born nutrients from the "Fall" to the "Flood"?

Or, perhaps it was a change in humans, no longer able to extract the extant nutrients? Is this what you mean by "getting further from perfection with each generation"? The plants weren't changing, just the humans.

If you'd ever read the Bible you wouldn't need me to tell you. The GROUND was cursed after the Fall.
So, yes, the plants could not deliver as high a quality food as when the ground was blessed. (I'm insisting that you find this in your own Bible, online or whatever.
It is there.

humans would need animal protein for their own health as a result of the first harsh seasons on the planet.

Or was it the plants again? Or maybe both? The "first harsh seasons" didn't occur until after the "Flood"? What about after the "Fall"?

See above....look up the account to find your answer.

You have some theories that can be explored here. Do you have any physical evidence and observations that 6-10 thousand years ago, humans (and carnivores/omnivores) suddenly stopped being able to derive nutrients (for one reason or another) from vegetation? Do you have any evidence from the real, observable world? Or are you basing your theory entirely on a few lines found in a book?

God evened the playing field by putting some ''fear of man'' into most animals.

Were men not fearful enough as it was? Are animals incapable of learning without God directly altering them? Which animals did you observe this change in, in order to formulate this theory of yours?

Besides years of evidence which made the DoDoBird a notable exception, I've hunted all my life. It is easy to see that, if you're not really sneaky, your prey escapes you.

beans and rice can be converted into all the proteins we need by the addition of lemon/lime juice and heat.

Are all of God's mandates so easily defied?

There's nothing defiant in making a complete set of aminos out of a combination of vegetation.
Most American vegans have to learn the hard way after a bout with some horrid deficiency.

I think that most here are only Bible skeptics, not really God skeptics. (It is so easy to criticize the Bible, not so worry-free to criticize, say, the koran).

I'm not sure what this has to do with eating vegetables, but I will address your concerns about it:

Believers never produce a "God" to back up their claims. Instead, they produce a "Bible". The first time a believer actually shows me a "God", then I will at that point in time decide whether or not to be skeptical about it. Until that time, I will continue to be skeptical about the "Bible", since that is where believers lie all of their claims. Does this sound reasonable to you?

Sure. God produced the Bible so humans, you included, could learn about Him and, if you chose to do so, draw close to Him and gain everlasting life. He gives us all a choice and all the info we'd need to make it. Yours is yours, mine, mine.

Using "X is true because the Koran says so" is just as feeble as "X is true because the Bible says so". Strangely, Christians can agree with the first part, but even though they use the exact same reasoning as Muslims, fail to see the same fault with their own reasoning. I criticize each equally based on merit, but precedence given to the one that most directly affects me at any given time. Does this sound reasonable to you?

You are making a hasty generalization based on less knowledge of the Bible and the Koran, like many people. The Bible actually tells readers to use their power of reason to make sure of things. The koran, in contrast, penalizes the person who presumes to think for himself/herself. That is a death offense. Criticizing the Bible gets you a nice conversation. Do the same with a Muslim and you might be hunted down and killed.

Have you ever noticed, when debating a Muslim, how they simply rest all of their arguments on "the Koran says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter"? Isn't it strange that Christians do the same thing? "The Bible says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter." Why do you think this happens? What kind of reasoning is the Muslim using? The Christian?

What you think you are noticing is not true. Muslims won't even tell you that. They will (even here a few have) try to direct you to an imam. They are not even secure in their beliefs to presume to teach. Look at threads here to see this. Christians are expected to use their own reasoning to help others and have many examples from the Bible of both Jesus and early Christians doing the same. They follow their master in this.

Which do you think is a more effective method to discover the nature of things:
a) study the nature of things
b) study an old book about talking animals that claims to be about the nature of things

This is a false dilemma.
A combination of the two works for me.

Naturally, people are fully capable of drawing incorrect conclusions about the object they study. But which of these two study materials is in closer contact with the object being studied? The actual object itself, or a book claiming to be about the object? What is your opinion on this matter? Are people being foolish for studying the objects themselves to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Should they instead just believe what a book about talking animals says to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Which of these two options is more likely to produce useful conclusions?

It isn't an ''either/or.''
I have said here many times that God did not put the Bible here to teach humans about His Creations.
He put it here to teach us about Him so we can draw closer to Him and gain life through His arrangements.
So, to learn about ''objects'' one must study the objects.
I have no problem with that.

Badsidhe wrote:

---

(NannyG123): Badsidhe, if you are not even willing to pick up the book to check things for yourself you will remain in ignorance.

I have "picked up the book", and as I alluded to in my previous post, my interpretations conflict with yours just as yours conflict with the next Christian.

(NannyG123): All you get is one person or another's opinion.

Well, I try, at least. But that only works if they answer my questions. Are you willing to do so?

(NannyG123): You can then do your ''moral equivalence'' thing with them.

I don't understand what you are referring to here.

(NannyG123): Your ''facts'' and timeline are based on ignorance.

I'm not sure what "facts" and "timeline" you are referring to.

(NannyG123): You misunderstand the simplest thing because you refuse to make sure of it

What "thing"? What is "it"?

(NannyG123): ....Plato taught thinking people to at least do that.
In his world you would be in the cave.

The allegory of the cave speaks of people only being allowed to see part of reality, and making their judgements based only upon the parts that they are allowed to see. Which fits very nicely into the line of questions from my last post that you did not answer. In your opinion, what percentage of your interpretation of reality do you base on observing reality itself (everything that can possibly be observed), and how much do you base on only the contents of a book (which is obviously a subset within everything that can possibly be observed)?

I have addressed all of your comments. Will you address my comments, and questions from my previous posts? Or shall we leave this at "Badsidhe is ignorant"?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout all my time debating with believers, I've only gotten two different reactions at the close of our relationship. Both reactions, I believe, are based on the same prime motivation (which will go undiscussed as a huge tangent unless you really want to hear it). The two reactions are this:

a) Believer starts making personal attacks in lieu of answering questions.
b) Believer dusts off sandals/stops casting me pearls. In lieu of answering questions.

Please don't tell me you've reached this point with me already.

Two extra notes:

a) Since your complaint is "Badsidhe not willing to pick up the book" and I addressed your complaint with "Badsidhe has picked up the book", are you willing to concede that your complaint is without merit and continue from where we left?
b) You have not convinced me that I should even pick up the book to begin with. Why should I believe this book has any merit, when you won't answer questions that pertain to ascertaining its merit?

If you are a person worthy of merit you will pick it up again for this purpose:

Read about the ground being cursed. (Gen. 3)

Let me know.

Different translations use different terms for ''thorns and thistles,'' but trust me, even the animals are stuck with having to eat them.

In fact I made almost $300,000 once because I explained to non-hunting researchers into chronic wasting disease that deer in the wild more often than not have cuts and sores on their tongues as a result of eating thorny forage. All their experiments in the controlled environment with commercial deer feed were in vain. Deer don't get CWD orally unless their tongue is cut because it takes so long to incubate they die of old age first. But when their tongue is cut it only takes 43 days. I invested in their research and it worked out well for all concerned.

Badsidhe wrote:

---

I have done as you have asked, but there are still zounds of unanswered questions that you can attend to.

Will you?

Artichokes are tasty.

Wait a few days, thanks.