Slashdot Mirror
The Human Mutation
eldavojohn writes "Scientists in China have announced finding the gene that makes us human. The article explains that prior work has shown that humans, as compared with the great apes from which we diverged over 5 million years ago, have a longer form of a protein (type II neuropsin) located in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain. From the article: 'Gene sequencing revealed a mutation specific to humans that triggers a change in the splicing pattern of the neuropsin gene, creating a new splicing site and a longer protein. Introducing this mutation into chimpanzee DNA resulted in the creation of type II neuropsin. "Hence, the human-specific mutation is not only necessary but also sufficient in creating the novel splice form," the authors state.' The team is urging further analysis of the extra 45 amino acids in type II neuropsin since they believe that chain may cause protein structural and functional changes. The research didn't link anything with this protein, simply identifying it as a very distinct difference between us and our closest cousins."
I for one, welcome our new english speaking tyrannical ape-like overlords.
Putting human brain genes in chimps, this is how it all starts. A thousand years from now some astronaut returning to earth is going to be saying "Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!"
The article explains that prior work has shown that humans, as compared with the great apes from which we diverged over 5 million years ago, have ...
Now that the prior work is already covered, the AACS can't copyright us.
You have 6bln more monkeys running around the Earth.
Great. Now someone will come up with a retrovirus or something that makes us all as dumb as Bush.
longer form of a protein
As long as... a spaghetti noodle, perhaps?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
...is that your pets have been already eating it for two months!
Chip H.
Yeah, everyone knows that the word "created", such as "God created man" means "instantly popped into existence". Like when an artist creates a sculpture. Rome wasn't created in a day. It was created in an instant. Lets just ignore the fact several religious texts like the Popul Vuh out there has proof pointing the other way. Besides, other religions are all run by God-less heathens.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
1. Scientist suspects that there are differences between humans and apes.
2. Scientist looks for said difference.
3. Scientist discovers said difference.
4. World in awe of Scientists intellectual prowess.
5. Story makes Slashdot.
6. Jokes made about overlords and beowulf clusters.
7. World realizes that there are protein and amino acid differences encoded in our genes
8. World realizes that world already suspected as much and Scientist fades into obscurity.
9. "Neuropsin" ends up as most obscure Jeopardy answer EVER
This is cool and all, but unless we plan on manipulating those genes in Apes and three years later accepting simian dominance of our world I can't see how this impacts anyone but grant writers.
load "$",8,1
well I'll be a monkey's uncle...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I hope Karma is real and he comes back as a piss-off research ape in a Chinese lab and rips some arms off of someone responsible.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Chinese Jews?
Hot and Sour Matzah ball soup, anyone?
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
We're all mutants? That can't be good...
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
... overstatement by the summary.
They did not actually find the gene which "makes us human," as that would actually be several million genes (1.2% of the human genome). They found a gene which causes apes to produce "neuropsin, a protein that plays a role in learning and memory."
Tell me if I'm wrong (sources if you can find them) but don't apes already have near the level of learning and memory we have? They have some level of socialization and tool use, which are two of the important ideas that set us apart from "animals". IMO, a better breakthrough would be to see if apes have some sort of moral code, or even finding the genes that give us a voicebox. Speech is the one thing we have that no other animal does. Speech leads to language, which is really the only way (I can think of, at least) to exchange abstract ideas (another gene to look for, abstract thought).
So as creationist Billg would say, "This is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard at Microsoft!"
Make your protein chain longer! For a limited time only!
"To be is to do." -Socrates
"To do is to be." -Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do-be-do-be-do." -Frank Sinatra
The Human Mutation
[...]
simply identifying it as a very distinct difference
There are other genes different between humans and other apes. Identifying them requires something like a diff run, not the complex analysis reported in this story. Apparently lacking the human neuropsin gene doesn't disqualify submitters from Slashdot.
--
make install -not war
Are you saying that you believe that FSM created humans? What was the problem with the angels?
Why does FSM enjoy being worshipped so much? Nothing better to do? Lonely? Why does FSM care if anyone believes an unverifiable story? If a dog does not believe in its invisible master (or in a master that hides from the dog), should the dog be tortured?
The PhysOrg article doesn't say, but it's likely the mutation is only in one or a few base pairs; the "extra 45 amino acids" most certainly do not require 45 (if you're counting amino residues) or 135 (if you're counting base pairs) mutations. When making proteins, DNA is transcribed into pre-mRNA, which in eukaryotes (including chimps and humans) then undergoes a process called splicing (wikipedia). Splicing removes certain interim sequence segments (introns) and joins the remaining sections (exons) back together, before the final mRNA is translated into protein. This splicing process can often happen in several different ways for a given gene depending on a variety of factors. That's what they're talking about here -- some mutation in the coding sequence lead to splicing changes, which in turn lead to a more dramatic change in the final gene product (the protein). It only takes a single base pair mutation to cause alternative splicing.
They'll just find that it contains the 09 F9 number when the gene sequence has every two base pairs encoded as one hex digit. Then they'll sue everyone who has sex in the USA for "unauthorized trafficking" per the DMCA.
:)
The only good side of this is that, for once, Slashdotters will NOT be affected
I open this topic, thinking I'm gonna get to hear that someone's finally able to shoot eyebeams or read minds and it's just some silly science thing. I demand powers!
This is one of a large number of variants between humans and apes. There's no reason to think this is "the gene that makes us human", they're not claiming it is, and reporting this not-especially-interesting news accurately would allow just as many moronic comments about creationism.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Oh, no. They can just claim that God designed this gene.
I gotta hand it to them -- no matter what the evidence, they can sidestep it...
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
So heaven is full of people saying, "go to hell" . . .
Evolution is natural, not supernatural. Therefore, science *can* disprove these moronic ID theories.
You created type II neuropsin in chimp brains! Damn you! God damn you all to hell!
That... sounds surprisingly delicious. *makes note*
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
... MUST I continue?
Born, to clone
Now, with the introduction of said protein, putting a hundred monkeys into a room with typewriters will indeed produce a work the likes of William Shakespear. Only now the chimps will each sue each other for infringing on each other's intellectual property.
To make us yellow and spineless like a Democrat.
To bad Monty Python has "Run away! Run away!" copyrighted, else the Dems could have a new party motto to go with their white flag.
That's not what my parrot said.
That's because ID is creationism attempting to invade the realm of science. Do so and you subject yourself to science's rules.
That said, there is no amount of evidence that will convince the really staunch ID proponents. Then again, there are still people who believe in geocentrism.
They'll be able to increase the genetic expression of this protein and create ultra intelligent humans? Maybe making us more human than we already are?
Thank you. The word used in genesis that translates to "created" means "formed" (ie formed from other materials)... in fact, the word 'created' in ENGLISH doesn't mean to take something out of nothing... it means to form out of materials that already exist. (and it didn't have to happen in 6 days, either).
Yeah but ID is supernatural, so it cannot be disproved.
In the same manner that religion cannot prove or disprove Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence?
Soylent gene is people!
"Toilers of the world, disband! Old books are wrong. The world was made on a Sunday." V Nabokov
So, does this mean that if the gene is present in a fetus it is therefore a human -- not trolling, just raising the question
The Chinese will have super intelligent animal kingdom fighters in no time. We must not let the Chinese beat us to planting spies among wildlife.
Would you like soy sauce on your falafel?
OK, seriously, the GP wrote the worst troll I've ever read. He wrote so stupidly that I almost think he really believes we Jews fuck with the human genome.
True. Genesis doesn't say it was created in 6 days. The first four days are not really days, because what exactly is a day defined as when the sun, moon, and heavens don't exist?
I'm in the middle of reading The Uplift War and next I'm gonna get Startide Rising. I hope we "uplift" some chimps and see what happens.
You don't have to be Chinese/Jewish or wait for Passover/Gnu Years to enjoy matzo balls. Matzo balls are delicious dumplings made from unleavened bread meal, usually served in broth or soup.
INGREDIENTS:
* 4 eggs or egg substitute
* 1/2 cup club soda
* 3 Tbsp vegetable oil
* 2 Tbsp finely chopped parsley
* Salt
* Freshly ground black pepper
* 1 cup matzo meal
PREPARATION:
Whisk the eggs until blended. Now add the club soda, vegetable oil or schmaltz, salt and pepper. Easy on the salt, you can always add but you can never take away.
Sponsored Links
Blend in the parsley and matzo meal. Cover and refrigerate this mixture for about 1 hour.
Bring about 5 quarts of water to boil. Rub vegetable oil on hands and form matzo balls with about two tablespoons of mixture. Drop in boiling water and simmer covered and don't peek (okay, maybe once or twice) for about 25 to 35 minutes. Serve in broth, to which add 1/4 teaspoon red pepper and 2 tablespoons vinegar.
For matzoh-miso soup, use miso paste to make the broth.
That protein is what makes us human... but that means that Soylent Green is people!!!
Touched by His noodly appendage, that gene was...
The research didn't link anything...
Maybe because it's...missing?
What?
the joke continues YOU!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh, no. They can just claim that God designed this gene.
I gotta hand it to them -- no matter what the evidence, they can sidestep it...
We don't have to claim because it is implied. God set in motion the rules of physics and chemistry for the universe and created everything you see (and don't see). We aren't a result of the universe. It is a result of us. It didn't come from us but it is here for us to exist. Show me conclusive evidence for evolution and we'll talk. As it stands, the fact that multiple species share genes doesn't mean anything other than they share genes. Showing incomplete frames of "evolution" and filling in the gaps to fit a theory is creating evidence where none exists. You act like only one side of a debate ever does the sidestepping. Look in the mirror. I gotta hand it to you, no matter what the lack of evidence, you can still follow the wrong people.
You need to start thinking for yourself for once and not believe that everything you read is true. You conveniently forgot that scientists make mistakes (even the smart ones) and others take up the slack to correct incomplete and errored theories. Evolution is only a theory and doesn't even make predictions about the world; its existence relies on imperfect and biased humans making guesses about a time period when they weren't alive in order to fit their *own* theory. Biased? Nah, of course not. It's interesting how a few skeletons (why only a few? where was everyone else?) can be used to create a fully detailed timeline of human history. Seems some scientists are looking a little too hard to find what they want to find.
The fact that they put this genes into chimps and they didn't magically become humans clearly shows that the summary is flat out wrong. I think it's pretty obvious that there is no *one* thing that makes you human, so the concept of a single gene that is responsible for "being human" is absurd. Is this one of many? Likely. A few years back FOXP2 was the big "human gene" and I'm sure there will be more.
For the humanity deficient. Compulsory vaccination with Type II Neuropsin enabling virus and the world may be cured of lawyerism in all its forms.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
This is another demonstration of the failure of the reductionist method to describe complex phenomena. Genetics is but a small portion of what 'makes us human', and this particular gene is but a small portion of genetics. Saying that one gene 'makes us human' is like saying "I've found the atom that makes this the Earth". People who insist that we are nothing but a product of our genetics are missing a very important point: reproduction is not a discrete process - it's a continuation of life, and therefore everything that is included in the parents' lives are also included in the makeup of the child, from body chemistry through to thought itself. Life is organised on many levels by many processes, NOT physical 'codes'. Genes exist, and are used, sure, but they are not the be-all and end-all.
What these reductionist scientists can claim is that they've found a gene that appears to be unique to humans. This is quite different from what they're claiming.
I don't believe in god, but I'll be damned if some of you atheist evangelicals aren't just as fucking annoying as the Christian variety.
You know those annoying assholes who mention god every time they open their mouths? Yeah, that's the way some of you atheists sound too. Ever seen the way some people slobber all over Dawkins like he was fucking Billy Graham?
Calling this "the gene that makes us human" is quite a stretch, isn't it? Not only are there plenty of mutations all over the genome (like the FOXP2 gene that is associated with speech and appeared within the last 200,000 years in the human lineage), but slashdot summary seems to undermine it's own summary when it says, "Introducing this mutation into chimpanzee DNA resulted in the creation of type II neuropsin." If this was "the gene that makes us human", then shouldn't that last sentence read: "Introducing this mutation into chimpanzee DNA resulted in the creation of a human"?
Mod parent informative.
If only the world knew what happens on slashdot..
My parents and grandparents make/made excellent matzoh ball soup. I usually put cayenne pepper in it instead of salt, though. The miso paste idea sounds awesome! I found a recipe for hot and sour soup, too, and I might try to combine it... maybe replace the tofu with matzoh balls or something.
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
Recent origin of a hominoid-specific splice form of neuropsin, a gene involved in learning and memory. Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Nov;21(11):2111-5. Epub 2004 Jul 28. At an impact factor of about 5... not bad.
Neuropsins have been implicated in being important in memory (approximated by long-term potentiation - some very artificial forms of LTP require neuropsin).
What if we can reproduce with them? (shudder) Cause if we can, someone will.
I can only see bad coming out of something like this and really not much potential good.
Well if Monsanto, or any of the other big firms into genetic research produce them, you can be sure that they'll be sterile. They wouldn't want anyone breeding their own after delivery; they'd want you to go back to the source for another fresh batch of clones.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's really not fair that you associate ID with geocentricism. Actually, there are a good number of scientists who support ID with actual scientific evidence. Granted, most of it doesn't try to support ID so much as it tries to disprove evolution. However, they are using science: the scientific method, actual data, real research, ect., and that can't be denied simply because of what they're pointing to. Anyone who disregards their findings simply on the grounds that they're trying to prove ID is as bad as the Catholic Church getting all worked up about the idea that Earth might not be the center of the universe. And, yes, there are a few (Ok, more than a few)creationists who never have, and never will, cared what scientific data says. However, there are also atheists who wouldn't change their views if God wrote his name on the moon in huge neon lights. People are stupid like that.
Geocentric? ... Rubbish! Reality is Ideocentric isn't it? Moi! ... :)
Then there's the Turtles of course
God set in motion the rules of physics and chemistry for the universe and created everything you see (and don't see).
We aren't a result of the universe.
It is a result of us.
It didn't come from us but it is here for us to exist.
What world do you live in where you can just state these kind of wild hypotheses with no evidence whatsoever and expect anybody to accept that as a reasonable argument?
Oh, that's right. The religious one where that actually is a perfectly compelling argument.
I love how these articles about Human vs Great Ape DNA always ignore the fact that Humans have 46 chromosome and Great Apes have 48.
You seem like a good candidate to answer this question: which component of the theory of evolution do you think is wrong? Do you think that genes don't mutate? Do you think genes aren't expressed externally? Do you think that no mutations create favorable phenotypes for survival and/or reproduction? Evolution is the sum total of those and a few other phenomena, so tell me which component is false or unsupported.
I'm afraid if you want to disprove evolution you'll have to show flaws in science, real science, and not the vague "evolution" you hear about in the media. Idiot. Can't believe this is what passes for independent thought these days.
So THAT'S what the monolith did!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
"Junk DNA" and "millions of genes in humans" are but a few things that have been mentioned in the comments and are complete nonsense. As usual, the article is really light on the specifics and exagerates the actual scientific achievements. Using common tools (BLAST, ClustalW, etc.) it is rather easy to first of all compare genomes from different organisms. No big deal on that part. A lot of people do it all the time with various organisms and discover a lot differences along the way. And it shouldn't be a surprise that if a protein has an additional 45 amino acids, that it would then affect its structure. I'm not saying it isn't interesting or shouldn't be further investigated, but c'mon, this isn't earth shattering. And now all the people here throwing around various biological terms like they're candy... The terms that are relevant for their research are:
- Introns (regions within genes that aren't transcribed into mRNA)
- Exons (regions that are transcribed into mRNA)
- Alternative splicing (different proteins can be made out of the same gene, but different exons were used. Ie an alternative combination of exons was "spliced" together)
- Genes (encodes one or multiple proteins)
- Promoter (place where another protein can bind to and "promote" transcription of the gene)
- Codon (triplet of bases; ex: AUG, TTA, GTC, etc.)
- mRNA (string of basepairs from which codons are read and translated into amino acids --> protein)
- Non-coding region (yeah, guess what that means)
It's a pretty brief overview, but please google or wikipedia a few minutes about this topic before posting. Wikipedia-ing the terms i've mentioned should give a solid understanding of what's important to understand for this article.
- 1) they'll regard it as a new revelation of [God]'s mystery
- 2) they'll regard it as neat information about the world, but irrelevant to their faith because their faith isn't derived from anything in the physical world, or
- 3) they'll regard it as a test of their faith
Thoreau once said, "Only that day dawns to which we are awake." There's a lesson in there: there's no other possible world available to you than the one you've made space for in your mind. The religious are awake to their kind of day, and you and I are awake to a different kind of day based on different logical, rational, or asserted postulates (from which all else follows pretty rationally once you accept the prior postulate).Hey, for all we know, they might be right. (May his noodly gloriousness be merciful when the rapture comes, if that's the case.)
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
As it stands, the fact that multiple species share genes doesn't mean anything other than they share genes.
Why then do you have such striking contradictions to that concept? For example a dolphin should be more closely related to a shark based on its anatomy and function (fins, body-shape, diet), but is more genetically related to a kangaroo than a fish. The only way that makes sense is with common descent and evolution.
Evolution is only a theory and doesn't even make predictions about the world;
It makes many predictions about the world, from predicting the existence of a genetic-basis for heredity to the comparative genomics of today. Many of the theoretical predictions of the 1950-70s are just being shown to be correct within the last few years (such as signatures of positive/negative selection in regions of the human genome). The fact that you are ignorant of the predictions doesn't negate their existence.
"You need to start thinking for yourself for once and not believe that everything you read is true."
How about if you eat your own medicine?
Bert
scientists really don't have any kind of life, do they?
-Tony
All of you slashdoters think, that this gene must give us humans an improvement - to make superior specie - Humans. You all think that there is something in humans that makes us better than apes. What if we are only stronger and not really better ?
What if this gene codes "greed and selfishness" or some strange social behaviour. For example: the gene that forces us to stay in groups and obey (forced to study spoken languages, C#, Java, PHP syntax, to obey RIAA).
Such genes would make us stronger, but the question is, if we would be better because of them.
Lots of other animals either have or can be taught language, and many more than that have a stricter and more defined social structure. (Morality has no objective meaning.) "What makes us human" is not any one thing, but rather a confluence of many factors:
We're sufficiently social
We're can think abstractly
We can communicate abstractly
We don't make our children figure things out on their own
We're omnivorous, which makes agriculture much easier to develop
We have highly dexterous manipulators
We're aggressive enough to wipe out any natural predators
We're horny enough to fill any available niche quickly (geologically speaking).
There are countless examples of other species that have one or two of these traits.
I'll take "Animal Genitalia, Audio Clues", for $600 Alex.
[Thank you Colin Mochrie, Who's Line is it Anyway?]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I have filter set up that adds "-6" to anything you nerds think is funny (but of course, isn't). Flagging stuff you find funny as "Insightful" or "Underrated" is ruining my bliss. PLEASE STOP IT!
George Bush needs to do everything within his power to keep this technology from Iran! They will leak this tech to terrorists and next thing you know we'll have suicide bombing monkeys swinging through New York! I say preemptive strike! We are in imminent danger from the terrorists monkeys!
It's what gives Glagnar's Human Rinds that special human-y flavor.
Glagnar's human rinds! It's a buncha muncha cruncha human!
"It's really not fair that you associate ID with geocentrism. Actually, there are a good number of scientists who support geocentrism with actual scientific evicence. Granted, most of it doesn't try to support geocentrism so much as it tries to disprove evolution. However, they are using science: the scientific method, actual data, real research, etc., and that can't be denied simply because of what they're pointing to. Anyone who disregards their findings simply on the grounds that they're trying to prove geocentrism is as bad as the Catholic Church getting all worked up about the idea that humans might not be the crown of creation. And, yes, there are a few (Ok, more whan a few)geocentricists who never have, and never will, cared what scientific data says. However, there also atheists who wouldn't change their views if God wrote his name on the moon in huge neon lights. People are stupid like that."
Care to cite an example for
1) a creationist who uses actual data (without reinterpreting it in completely absurd ways);
2) an atheist who explicitly states that there is no possible way to convince him that god exists.
The problem with creationists is that they don't start from the evidence and try to find a theory explaining it, but they start with a "theory" (not really one, as it doesn't make any predictions) and reinterpret the evidence to make it fit.
Of course, I am ceding both the conceivability of 1 and 2, but I have never seen either, so the burden of proof rests on you - in the same way as the burden of proof for proving the existence of god rests on the believers, not on the atheists.
Also it is my experience that atheists aren't atheists in a dogmatic way, but they arrived there through long consideration - after all, atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Demanding proof from the one making the claim is different from not accepting a proof when given.
In general, it is my experience that at least there are as much creationists fulfilling 1 as there are atheists fulfilling 2, as I have met or even heard of neither .
You can then introduce it to various different animals, I would love to see winged humanoids, gilled...
Also see "The Time Machine" by H. G. Wells, and "The Last Castle" by Jack Vance.
Actually, there are a good number of scientists who support ID with actual scientific evidence.
How is that even possible, given religion is a faith?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
If you produce a monkey capable of being commanded to do the most basic tasks, somewhere a million PHBs will replace human workers with it.
Can it sew shoes? Well, cool. All those jobs were moved to inhuman sweatshops in poorer countries long ago. Imagine the savings if you don't even have to pay those salaries. Just dig some bunker with a thousand monkey cages, and make them sew for 18 hours a day, for the cost of just some water and biomass as food. Ok, they'll probably wear out pretty quickly at that rate, but you can always replace them and use the previous ones as extra protein for the next generation.
Can it operate a phone and compare simple questions to a canned FAQ? (Not necessarily intelligently or successfully, mind you.) Yay. There go the first level tech support jobs. Let's be honest, it _is_ a cheap monkey job as far as every manager in the organisation sees it. Level 1 is there just to deflect the trivial stuff from reaching the expensive level 2 guys, and occasionally discourage some people from escalating even non-trivial stuff. If you're a qualified nerd in a level 1 job, well, you have my sympathy, so take it as: you don't belong there.
Ok, so the monkeys probably won't have a larynx capable of human speech, but I'm sure someone will figure out some text-to-speech scheme.
For that matter, can it operate a keyboard? Well, the drive of the last half a century straight was to buy expensive tools and believe that now even less qualified burger-flippers can write your programs with them. Never mind that that guy is incapable of abstract algorithmic thought and too bored to even learn the language. The nice salesman from IBM/MS/BEA/whatever said that you don't need expensive smart guys any more. Any semi-trained monkey can write great enterprise programs with their tools in 21 days, don't you know? And that nice salesman plays such a nice game of golf, that he's surely trustworthy.
If that sounds like made-up fiction, sadly, it isn't. I actually know of two departments which hired their programmers by reverse auction. Whoever wants less money gets the job, no further qualifications needed or questions asked. Literally. Needless to say, they ended up with people about as sharp as a bowling ball. In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "I've seen, AH SAY, I've seen better heads on a mug of beer." Some were just now discovering stuff like that they need to put quotes around a string, and some were having trouble understanding why. One guy had trouble understanding why the variable he declared in the constructor isn't visible in another method. Etc.
Plus, think of all the other advantages of putting semi-human monkeys in those jobs. For starters, who's gonna force you to pay for overtime or let them unionize? Schedules of 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, here we come. I'm sure some PHB (e.g., at EA) would ejaculate in his pants out of sheer joy at _that_ thought.
Or imagine the joy on some "your job could be the next to move to India" PHB's face, when he can replace it with the even more demeaning threat of, "remind me why I don't hire one of those new monkeys to do your job?"
Etc.
I'm sure there's a fun new economy just waiting to be discovered.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
In the past human societies may not have had the ability to create subspecies genetically, but they did have the ability to declare entire groups of people as a subspecies and treat them accordingly.
Women, Slavs, Africans, Native Americans, subjugated peoples of all kinds have at one time or another been declared a human "subspecies" and have been forced under duress to labour without pay or freedom. It's a common thread throughout history one which we think in our enlightenment will "never happen again", but we are really just fooling ourselves.
If we did manage to create a species that could talk, understand our speech, perform complex chores, (work in nuclear plants!), it would be ridiculous to state that they were entitled to no rights whatsoever. They would clearly be self aware and as intelligent as us. However, people would declare them to be "inferior", and they would become the new slave caste in society. People would justify this with all kinds of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo, but at the end of the day we'd be no different from the old southern whipmasters going out of their way to justify an unjustifiable act.
May the Maths Be with you!
Step one for invasion of earth. Put Neon lights on the moon.
There's always an alternative explanation for an argument for god. How do you test for Omniscience anyway? Even if 'god did it' was written in the background radiation of the big bang, you could always be in a simulation. I suppose it all depends on what you mean by silly and what burden of evidence you need.
Personally I'd always go for an explanation which would be an extrapolation rather than invoke something that pretty much by definition we can't conceive of.
The popular view of DNA is that genes determinve what you look like and the other 98% of the human DNA is "junk". Well that's not quite true.
In fact a big part of the the DNA that doesn't code for proteins is tied up in a system that regulates which genes get turned on and when. (This system is in turn driven by the proteins which come from the genes, just to make things confusing.)
So the big difference between humans and chimps is not the actual genes but the system that describes how development happens - this sytem decides how long your legs are, how hairy you are how big your brain is to a much greater extent than the actual genes do.
I'm no geneticist, but couldn't they use this to induce a mutation in the DNA of ape embryos and thus breed something akin to what the 'human' mutation would have looked like?
call me when they do a talking n teeth brushing fox that i can marry :3
Huxley would be proud.... We're on our way to making Brave New World and a whole host of worker drones. Load up the Soma, fellas.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
*WARNING* I think it's relevant to your post and this topic, but the site is completely filled with advertisements and pop-ups.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
That's something you'll just have to accept in a free society.
The alternative is a society where people are not free to promote their ideas and beliefs. And I have to hand it to the infidels: the majority of such societies are deeply religious and theocratic (even North Korea, the Kims are practically divine beings over there).
Dude, this is why aliens came here to make us humans.
This is a 60000 yr training session, now we will make 120,000,000 spaceships for them in 2050. And a whole modern planet built nicely.
All they have to do is activate the 'do not reproduce gene'
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
God and creationism is a marker that reads: "Stop thinking here". Your assertion that some god set in motion the rules of Physics and Chemistry is fantasy. Your drivel about us and the universe is logically inconsistent. Evolution has never been disproved. The data doesn't contradict it, and I don't see anyone inventing data to support the theory. Your statement that evolution is only a theory is asinine. Your statement that it doesn't make predictions is false (do some research). I have a better theory about the existence of the theory of Evolution: Someone made a guess and the data doesn't contradict the guess. Here's another theory that might assist you: Some skeletons don't last for long. Some of your other points I agree with.
Who ordered that?
This announcement brought to you from the same scientific community that finds incredible dinosaurs,cures that appearantly only work on chinese peasants and still promote the use of rhino horn over viagra.
Who can believe these attention whores?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Let me guess, they are looking for a way to create a species they can even exploit more then their own people in manufacturing.
I wouldn't worry too much. In most countries animals have more rights and are better treated than your average human being. I'm still waiting for approval as a bi-ped canine.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Infinite number of Cheneys, .
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
That and generalizations like the one above us are flawed. You might see 10 people in 1000 make some remark once, and never again. As long as about 10 people continue to make a similar remark, perception will be that there's some group that's always doing blah blah - when in truth, no one does it all the time - just that they have a 1/100 rate of doing so ...
Using Traffic as an example, if someone exits the freeway from the farthest lane, they look like an ass hole. If I see two people every day do this - it looks like a pretty common problem, when really, I see many, many more people who drive sane, and a few people each day forget when their exit's comming up. It's not a select group of asshats merging off the freeway unsafely, its just a few people making mistakes every once in a while and performing a risky maneuver without thought.
No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
The mix is good too. But cook them in broth, not water, they're much tastier that way.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
What makes us really human is the recognition of the unknown, belief in something that we cannot sense with every single sense of the five including technological extensions of it..., something that we will never be able to prove or disprove.
It is the recognition of God, the concept of God. No matter if you accept it or deny it, or say "I do not know". If you capable to answer the question "Is there God?" in any way: positive, negative or agnostic way, once you have been presented with it, then you are a human.
I've heard recordings of whale song that sound pretty damn reverent, so I s'pose we should regard whales as presumptively human, right? At least until we're smart enough to learn the lyrics?
OTOH, any product of conception cannot possibly be human until its brain is sufficiently developed to support the kind of highly abstract reasoning that you propose. This would be a very strong argument for abortion rights advocates. In fact it goes beyond that— it would be a strong argument for infanticide.
<p voice="ChurchLady">Well, isn't that special?
Just because they found this gene expressed in the prefrontal cortex of humans and chimps doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the development of it. This is a problem the evolutionary-development people have all the time: expression does not equal causation. Just because we have a different flavor of this gene in our PFC doesnt mean that it actually does something. If they really wanted to demonstrate this they would have to create a trasgenic chimp when the human gene had been inserted in place of its own...I am not aware of anyone capable of doing such an experiment currently. Besides, why do you think it is in Genome Watch or whatever journal instead of Nature or Science?
So minor changes between kinds of animals does happen (not from apes to humans though), this is observed. Why doesn't somebody show us some examples of the other parts of your beloved religion? Why don't we still have "missing links" running around? Here are the six
1) Cosmic evolution: nothing exploded and created hydrogen gas.
2) Chemical evolution: hydrogen "evolved" into higher order elements.
3) Stellar and planetary evolution: these elements somehow got together and formed stars.
4) Organic evolution: life created itself.
5) Macro evolution: this single celled organism "evolved" into a multi-cellular organism. One kind of organism changes to another (i.e. a bananna evolved into a horse)
6) Micro evolution: (which HAS been observed and IS scientific) this is minor changes in kinds of animals. A wolf, dog and coyote all have a common answer.
When you do, go to drdino.com and claim your $250k prize! If not, there will be no other option but for there to be a special creation by a loving God who owns you and will judge you. You can choose to ignore it, but it is the truth.
Yeah, whatever next - some crazy story about snipping your dick-ends off?
It hasn't been disproven? Give me one instance of a kind of evolution being proven true in areas 1-5 below (no creationist will argue that #6 has been observed). Evolutionism is a religion more so than creation, problem is that it is supported by my tax dollars. 1) Cosmic evolution: nothing exploded and created hydrogen gas. 2) Chemical evolution: hydrogen "evolved" into higher order elements. 3) Stellar and planetary evolution: these elements somehow got together and formed stars. 4) Organic evolution: life created itself. 5) Macro evolution: this single celled organism "evolved" into a multi-cellular organism. One kind of organism changes to another (i.e. a bananna evolved into a horse) 6) Micro evolution: (which HAS been observed and IS scientific) this is minor changes in kinds of animals. A wolf, dog and coyote all have a common answer. When you do, go to drdino.com and claim your $250k prize! If not, there will be no other option but for there to be a special creation by a loving God who owns you and will judge you. You can choose to ignore it, but it is the truth.
You're a superstitious fool. Go away, find your own website
We could test to see if Anne Coulter is lacking said gene, and prove once and for all she's an inhuman demonspawn?
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Define 'man'. I bet they dont qualify.
Potential good? Well we could use another captive labour force around here, since Lincoln screwed that up for us a while ago.
Horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes and that does prevent a hybrid. Unless you wanted grandchildren or boys :-)
The pieces of chromosomes are all rearranged as in humans and chimps, and they find their matching components.
What if you disovered the gene/protein differences and then amplified them? Or changed them slightly to make more powerful human brains?
They are already trying this for athletes. For example humans have more of a muscle growth inhibitor called myostatin than some other species. Occasional mutations or very strong people have less myostatin. So some doctors are looking into suppressing this protein chemically or genetically.
While they clearly hope it is the single significant change, honestly they did not give much evidence that it was. They kind of made a good claim that it was one of several significant changes, but no where close to having evidence that it was the major change, let alone the only significant one.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
And what if we "screw up" and the subspecies is actually more intelligent than us? Stronger? More naturally-selectable?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
As to the scientific evidence, so far as I'm aware, arguments based on incredulity don't count as evidence. The very few positive claims made by ID proponents, like Irreducible Complexity are, in fact, predicted by evolution; Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe.
Intelligent Design is, at the end of the day, little more than a fallacious argument from incredulity. It makes no positive claims, provides no useful means of actually determining if something is designed (believe me, if a scientist could actually create a mathemetical model that would predict if any given object or phenomona was designed, it would be a BIG DEAL).
Probably the very worst thing about ID is that explicitely walks away from the questions that every actual science that studies intelligent actions attempts to answer; Who, What and Where? Because ID is nothing more than a stripped-down version of Creationism, meant explicitely to sneak past the First Amendment and get Creationism into schools (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), it is designed very much not to answer those questions. Unfortunately, as in the Dover case, the majority of the proponents are not aware of the scam, and mouth off from Creationist positions. This case is wonderful, because it has Michael Behe, one of the founding fathers of Intelligent Design, admitting that for ID to be considered science, so would astrology:
Kitzmiller v Dover - Day 11
In particular, this exchange (Q being the prosecution, A being Dr. Michael Behe):
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
I invite you to read the entire exchange. One of the major luminaries of ID completely discredits it, because ID is not science. It cannot be defended as a science, cannot be used as a science, and never was intended to be a science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You anonymous coward, have something intelligent to say rather than just scoffing at the truth because of your sinful life.
Ok, lets start with the age of the earth. The moon moves away from the earth at a rate of about 1 inch per year. Billions of years ago, the moon would have been part of the earth.
Erosion wears away at the surface of earth's land. After billions of years, why is surface of the earth not completely flat because of erosion?
The magnetic field of the earth is gradually declining in strength. Even 100 thousand years ago, the magnetic field would have been so strong that any living organism would be squished.
Take away billions of years and you have a pretty dumb sounding theory!
Now all we need is to mute the humans, sink the statue of liberty to her neck in beach sand and let the time take its new course...
Evolutionism takes more faith to believe in than creation. There is scientific evidence for creation, but evolutionism comes up short. If you can figure out some scientific evidence for evolutionism, go to www.drdino.com and claim your $250k prize! Please don't push your religion here though.
Type II Neuropsin is people!
Of course, I don't know if the offer is still on the table, given that "Dr." Hovind is in prison for tax evasion these days.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
How long before this and any other uniquely human differences are patented, and thus a company will be able to say they have a patent on humanity?
Will this have to happen before people finally agree that our patent system is horribly flawed?
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
fox:"Stick it in my mouth, I won't bite!"
*CHOMP*
fox:"Sorry, it is just in my nature."
The offer is still on the table I am sure. His ministry still has the rest of his staff there. It is a shame that he didn't pay his employees' payroll taxes, but he wasn't even allowed to defend his position at the trial. There's the justice system for ya.
Time, space and matter came into existance by themselves? That sounds more like religion than what I believe! If you have something semi-intelligent to say I would like to hear it. Otherwise I will just assume that you believe in evolution because if God owns the world, he has the right to judge it. That means that you are accountable for your sin. I am sure that you would rather be a heap of random chemicals with no reason to exist other than to feel good until you die and rot 6 ft under ground. The joke is on you though, because where you're headed is further down than 6ft!
This is one of the worst comments I've ever read on slashdot. Why couldn't you have posted a GNAA troll instead? Die painfully, as soon as possible.
ResidntGeek
I'd be mad if somebody could prove evolutionism scientifically. That's why I am glad I am right.
...there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts... 2 Peter 3:3
> Hey, for all we know, they might be right.
In fact it is exactly the opposite: for all we know, they are wrong (see "The God delusion" or "God: the failed hypothesis", to mention only two of the most recent and most widely known sources, for properly supported expositions of the idea that "God" has no epistemological value). It is only in what we don't know (yet) where the believers can locate any shadow of hope for the objective validity of their supernatural claims. This is what is called "the God of the gaps"; as science advances filling more and more of those gaps, the "God" is squeezed further and further from the realm of plausible intersubjectivity and towards its proper place among the many other mythologies.
Why would you think that erosion is the only process at work on the surface of the earth? Do you think that geologists really have such boring jobs? What about all the great activity that happens along fault lines and in regions where tectonic plates butt up against one another? The mere fact that the Himilayas are growing a couple of inches per year indicates that you can't simply assume that everything is getting flatter as time goes on. Again, a nonsense extrapolation gives you bad results.
Now you've just departed from reality and you're in Hovind-land. Why, again are you doing a linear extrapolation on something that's clearly nonlinear? In fact, all evidence is that the phenomenon is cyclical. And by what physical phenomenon would you expect our magnetic field to "squish" organisms?
It's getting warm in my area. In fact, I would say that the average temperature has increased by 10 degrees F in the past several weeks. Extrapolating that, we'll all be superheated plasma in a few years. Bad extrapolation? Probably.
My question for people who assert a young earth is this: How do you explain the collinearity of the points in the first graph here? The only way I can think of is billions of years of time passing since the formation of the matter.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I can't fucking believe you're allotted the same amount of oxygen as me. You better be a bored teenager annoying people online for fun.
ResidntGeek
Religious people and organizations can and do make predictions about reality based on their faith. Time and again, science has proven these religious predictions to be false. The religious people make a big fuss, end up looking like fools, and ultimately, dozens or hundreds of years later, change their beliefs, all the while pretending that their creed is unchanging, eternal, and infallible. Even if you could ever find two "Christians" who believe the exact same things, their beliefs would be very different from Christians from the 1st Century. Religion evolves much more quickly than complex organisms do.
I think that you missed the central points of my post (aside from the fact that Hovind is clearly a crank who can't really be trusted to make such an offer in good faith): 1) Evolutionary theory is a biological theory and has nothing to do with that claim. 2) Nobody could reasonably prove any empirical claim to the standards Hovind requires, and even if it were possible, the challenge is arbitrated by him and a secret panel (once again, probably just him). You couldn't prove that you were born based on those standards. There's no point in accepting the challenge because, like most of his other ideas, it's completely nuts. The fact that it hasn't been met is not surprising or meaningful.
That's kind of a silly leap to make. How about this: I assume that the only reason you don't believe in the Aztec god Chicomecoatl is because it would require you to sacrifice a girl every September. Deep down, you know that Chicomecoatl exists, but you're just too lazy to decapitate a girl once a year. Does that make any sense?
What I would "rather" be true has no bearing on what actually appears to be true. I'd rather have a long and happy afterlife than go nowhere. I'd rather have $100M in my bank account. I'd rather be immune to all forms of disease. That doesn't mean it's rational for me to believe those things. Evidence is that there isn't $100M in my bank account, no matter how much I'd like there to be. Evidence indicates that I'm susceptible disease. No real evidence points to an afterlife. I'm not going to force myself to believe those things just because it would be nice if they were true.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Play Pascal's Wager well.
Why are you shifting the burden of proof to me? Is there any reason to expect that it is nonlinear?
So what is your proof that the magnetic field is cyclical? Please don't use the weak argument that there are field reversals in sub-oceanic rock either. That is clearly garbage since they assumed that declining strength was pole reversal.
Radiometric dating is garbage as well. All that tells you is that there is a ratio, all these morons posing as real scientists somehow liken that to years. You assume that the rock formed without any isotope present. It is also laughable how you get the date from the ratio. They use "index fossils" which are just assumed to be a certain age from the "geologic column" (which by the way only exists in the textbooks).
As usual, you evolutionists use your same old tactics in a sad attempt to justify your wicked life. I wouldn't have any problem with your dumb religion if my tax dollars weren't supporting it.
Ok then... one simple question then. If evolution is true, how do you tell right from wrong?
Unless you're confusing "morality" with "mortality".
Humans are social animals, like many others. Through our evolution, there were some behaviours that were beneficial in terms of helping society, not just each individual, to survive and prosper, and others that were harmful. The ones with an emotional predisposition towards the former (right) were better able to survive in societies than the ones with an emotional predisposition towards the latter (wrong). It's similar to the way in which we find some environments, e.g. forests and hilltops, more beatiful than others: these environments provided an improved chance of survival, so the ones who happened to like them, and thus chose to live in them, were more likely to survive and pass on their genes.
In any case, humans aren't the only animals to display notions of right and wrong. Certain other primate and social bird species have been shown to have social norms regarding what is right and what is wrong. In some cases, this even includes punishment of those who do wrong.
Personally, I generally tell whether an action is right or wrong by asking myself whether I would like it if everybody else acted the same way. That generally works pretty well.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
No, the underlying theory that describes how the magnetic field is generated describes cyclical behavior.
Your complaint doesn't apply to isochron dating. That's what the link I pointed you toward describes. There's no assumption about the beginning ratios or quantities of isotopes. If you think differently, please explain how isochron dating really works. I think you've been sold a bill of goods.
Now I'm pretty sure that you're just trolling, but I suppose this nonsense needs to be answered. If you sound angry enough about something, people might take it as a sign that you're somehow authoritative and not just full of crap.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
where is Charleton Heston when you need him?
I don't see why atheists get so worked up. To me most of you are as bad or worse then fundamentalists. You both KNOW the answer and are going to cram it down everyone's throat. What's the difference between saying a supreme being created the universe or that it created itself? Nobody really knows. And guess what. Regardless of what theories people come up with, they weren't there so nobody ever will know. And don't be too proud of knowing historical "facts" that validate your particular beliefs or knock down someone elses. Anything outside of living memory really depends on you to have absolute trust in the person who recorded the event. And we've seen how modern day press is at getting things right. I'm not saying the christian faith is true or any other, IMO the bible being written by people automatically makes it suspect in my mind. I'm just saying live and let live and stop being so sure of yourself.
... Only an idiot, a liar, or a journalist would confuse that with "making us human." An idiot, a liar, and a journalist walked into a bar. He bought a drink, then left.Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
It's people on the fence like you that are the problem. If you would just go read a book every now and then, the few thousand true creationists in the world would have no influence. But no, half the population is too FUCKING lazy, or possible too FUCKING stupid, to figure it out, so they consider both sides to have equal weight and merit.
ResidntGeek
I assume that someone has a patent on this protein making it ... Intellectual Property.
4 billion years * 1 inch / year -> ~ 100 000 km.
Mean distance to the moon -> ~ 385 000 km.
So, it would have been less than 1/3 closer four billion years ago, using your logic. Is the Earth-Moon system older than that?
Volcanism. Go watch the surface move upwards at visible speeds on the southern edge of the big island of Hawaii. Multiply the effect by billions of years.
Can you quantify the decline in your terms? I am particularly interested in the decline before A.D. 1860, from your point of view.
You can't overturn an ontology with epistemology, simply because your epistemology must have a context (an ontology) in order to be relevant. Your world view comes before (and informs) all your subsequent thinking. You couldn't do an epistemological analysis of the value of "God" without a way of ordering the world for yourself- and if the way you already view the world is from the presupposition that God created it, analysis from a different ontological view won't make sense.
I'm merely pointing out that the same stuff in different contexts will mean different things. By relating to the world in a particular way, we bring our own contexts to it- and this informs our interpretations of it. We can talk about delusions all day, but in a certain sense, we're just saying that our delusion is better than theirs.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.