• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Why did God make us look SO much like other primates?

by Orion on Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:27 pm
Those are good questions. What I'm saying is that people choose not to believe, not out of rebellion or "choosing to believe a lie", but because they see results from tests that show the same thing over and over again. That the universe is extremely old, and our planet is quite old too. Are these things that which "God sends to them as delusions for them to believe"? I mean, what exactly are they supposed to believe when Christianity has given a time line from Genesis 1 to now as ~ 6,000 - 10,000 years, yet they test and test and test and etc. and continually get the same ball park of billions of years?

I'm not saying I agree with Evolution. I think it is something "middle of the road", too complicated for primative Hebrews to fully understand, so it comes out in a child like story, and perhaps even too complicated for modern man, hence believing it to start with a "Big Bang".

Regardless of all that, many people see these facts and gain their perspective from them, and those perspectives don't line up with some of what the Bible says. Are these facts placed there by God as a "hardening agent"? How would that be fair? Because these people would not disbelieve if they tested and tested and tested and etc. only to discover an early, young earth and universe!!

Those are good questions, too. I can’t answer for others in their search for truth. I can only say from my own experience, when I would rather not believe something, I am most likely to see a way around the truth of the matter. For instance, in theology, I am most repelled by Calvinist doctrines, so from time to time, I ask myself, if this hideous doctrine were true, would I eat the necessary crow involved with back tracking over my previous rants against it and would I accept it? If my answer is truthfully ‘no’, I have no business saying I am searching for truth, do I? I am merely setting up my own ideas and packing ‘evidence’ around them to make them stand.

Ultimately, it is love for one another and the way we live our lives in obedience to the message that Jesus brought that will be the determining factor of our destiny so what you believe in this area only has to bring you to the place where that is the important thing in your life. Sorry that was pretty run on and on but hopefully you will get the gist of it. Zzzzzzzzzzzzonked here.
 
We are in agreement here. What IS more important is the way we live our lives and how we treat those around us, and a lot of that can be emulated in the words that spoke of the life of Jesus. :)
 
Orion said:
We are in agreement here. What IS more important is the way we live our lives and how we treat those around us, and a lot of that can be emulated in the words that spoke of the life of Jesus. :)

Yup, it probably won’t take God 5 minutes to explain how he did it and either say, “you sure got that messed up†or “not too bad, considering.†Then he will go on to judge us by the works that he said he would judge us by. That’s why I think that Satan is especially interested in stealing the thunder from the teaching of Christ or making it obsolete altogether. It matters and critically so. This other stuff only matters if it undermines that teaching. I'd rather agree. :-D
 
Orion said:
When I look at most primates, it is obvious that they share a very close resemblance to humans, and I have to wonder why, when there are so many different looking creatures out there, . . . why God would make us look SO similar to "just another animal" when God COULD have given us an image that was starkly different than the other animals. :-?

Once again, in order for animals and humans to survive on the earth that God created, both humans and animals have to have these things in common:

1) A heart
2) Lungs
3) A stomach
4) Intestines
5) A brain
6) A circulatory system
7) A respiratory system
8) An ndocrine system
9) A nervous system
10 A reproductive system
11) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth
12) Legs
13) Skin

And on and on and on. Each animal and human was given what it needs to survive and for what it's purpose on earth is. Of course this is lost on evolutionary scientists because of their eagerness to deny God. So instead, they have manufactured a scenario that is as ridiculous as it is impossible for why the genes and DNA of humans and animals are so similar. :lol: So all they need to do is get out of their labs and observe reality so their lab findings won't be way out in outer space and contradict reality as well. ;-)
 
Once again, in order for animals and humans to survive on the earth that God created, both humans and animals have to have these things in common:

1) A heart

Many animals do fine without a heart.


Many animals don't have lungs.

3) A stomach

4) Intestines

There are animals with neither.

5) A brain

Many animals lack a brain.

6) A circulatory system

A number of phyla of animals have no circulatory system.

A respiratory system

How do you think that differs from lungs?

An ndocrine system

Some animals lack them.

A nervous system

At least one phylum of animals lacks this.

A reproductive system

In the sense that they all have means to reproduce, but some don't have a separate system.

2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose,

Many phyla have members that lack these.

Many don't have legs.

Rethink, um?
 
The Barbarian said:
Once again, in order for animals and humans to survive on the earth that God created, both humans and animals have to have these things in common:

1) A heart

Many animals do fine without a heart.

[quote:08d61]2) Lungs

Many animals don't have lungs.

3) A stomach

4) Intestines

There are animals with neither.

5) A brain

Many animals lack a brain.

6) A circulatory system

A number of phyla of animals have no circulatory system.

A respiratory system

How do you think that differs from lungs?

An ndocrine system

Some animals lack them.

A nervous system

At least one phylum of animals lacks this.

A reproductive system

In the sense that they all have means to reproduce, but some don't have a separate system.

2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose,

Many phyla have members that lack these.

Many don't have legs.

Rethink, um?[/quote:08d61]

The few animals that can exist without a heart or lungs, etc. is because of the purpose that God created them for, Barbarian. :roll: Thus sea animals will only have what equips them to live in the sea. This is a no-brainer.

But what's ludicrous, impossible and bizarre is claiming that the similarites between animals and humans is because one bred the other when they don't do that in reality. The of course it wouldn't be reproduction. :lol: So it you who needs to begin to think. ;-)
 
Since humans share many of the genes that primates have I think the answer is self evident.

Shalom
Ted :D
 
Heidi said:
The Barbarian said:
The few animals that can exist without a heart or lungs, etc. is because of the purpose that God created them for, Barbarian. :roll: Thus sea animals will only have what equips them to live in the sea. This is a no-brainer.

But what's ludicrous, impossible and bizarre is claiming that the similarites between animals and humans is because one bred the other when they don't do that in reality. The of course it wouldn't be reproduction. :lol: So it you who needs to begin to think. ;-)
YES I AGREE WITH YOU: one species did NOT breed with another species to achieve evolution! You are right on the nail there!
But evolution is achieved is through changes in the environment, mutations, and adaption... and all of this took a long time. The mutated genes are passed along from one generation to another, and the "improved" species continue reproducing until another change/mutation occurs and it gets passed down to the generations again. The sudden change of environment causes something called EXTINCTION! That's what happened to the dinosaurs :).

Christians believed that the world is flat, the earth is in the middle of the universe, God was in the heavens, Satan was under ground, the universe was created in 7 days, and all of those things were proven wrong by Science... now Christians are trying to pull stuff out of the bible and support what science found because it's so irrefutable.... What would it take to prove evolution? Would you believe evolution if God came down and told you that it was his design and we are too stuck up on a book? Would you believe evolution if that was God's plan, he designed living biological cells which multiplied, grew and evolved into what we now see in the world?

You see, the problem with any religion is that if a person is born in isolation they will NEVER known about God, and that means that they will never be Christians... but given enough time they will re-discover science and will be able to figure out the existence of evolution.

If you look at the entire world, people agree on science no matter where they are, if you go to Iraq you can easily agree with people that gravity exists, but you will never agree that Christianity is the "right" religion...
 
Orion said:
When I look at most primates, it is obvious that they share a very close resemblance to humans, and I have to wonder why, when there are so many different looking creatures out there, . . . why God would make us look SO similar to "just another animal" when God COULD have given us an image that was starkly different than the other animals. :-?

I guess another question you might want to ask is, "Why did God make the stars, knowing that people would worship them instead of him?" People do whatever they feel like. We can't blame God for notions that pop into other people's heads.
 
I just read this:
SV40 is a virus found in some species of monkey. Soon after its discovery in 1960, SV40 was found in polio vaccine. More than 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine during the period (1955–1963) when some of the vaccine was contaminated with SV40.
In this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30769

And remembered this thread here where there was a question about retroviruses in human DNA that was identical with that of some primates. Here are a couple earlier posts from this thread:

Slevin wrote:
If the impaired genetic code is passed down, then it is inherited along each subsequent generation.

Humans have thousands of endogenous retroviruses in their DNA, and we find 7 of those to be shared with Chimps. The genomes of all those primates listed in that picture share ERV's with shared retroviral sequences. So it's not so incredulous to think that out of thousands from ancestor species, maybe 7 survive all the way down to be shared by chimps and humans.


quote by Cirbryn on Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:17 pm
unred typo wrote: “OK. I’m confused. How exactly did this rare event effect all human and primate DNA? Please explain if the virus event occurred in a single primate and it just happened that all primates living from this time on were descended from this particular primate or did the virus effect all primates living at the time and how did this rare event occur?â€Â


Supposing that the same ERV appears in the same place in the genome of all living primates, but in no other animals, we would conclude that the virus infected the sperm or egg of a very early primate, which then went on to form an adult that became the ancestor of all primates living today. This is the only reasonable conclusion. Consider some other possibilities:

1) The ERV was inserted into all living primate species separately by independent viral infections.

Problem: There are about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, and presumably about that many in the genomes of other primates. If only two separate viral infections were involved, the chances of the ERV getting inserted into the same place each time are about 3 billion to 1. Multiply that by however many other primate species you find the ERV in.

2) The sequence of base pairs that’s being interpreted as an ERV actually came about (either in all the species or in all but one) as a result of random changes to the genome, and not due to viral infection.

Problem: The chances of this are many orders of magnitude lower than for alternative 1 above. ERV sequences are fairly long (several hundred base pairs, I think), and code for recognizable viral proteins (although those codes slowly degrade over time). Such sequences don’t come about randomly, much less in specific places in the genome.

So are there any problems with the accepted interpretation? For instance, is it reasonable to assume that the early primate that originally got infected with the ERV “just happened†to be an ancestor of all living primates. Sure it’s reasonable. No one’s saying that ancestor was the only one in his population to be infected, nor is anyone saying that that ancestor was the only common ancestor of all living primates. Assumedly others that got infected either didn’t have any descendants that made it to the present, or else they did and the ERVs they were infected with are also with us.

The thing about ERVs is that, assuming we understand them correctly, they should show patterns of relatedness. The groups that share an ERV (in a specific place in the genome) should be more closely related to each other than they are to groups that don’t share that ERV. As it happens they do show these patterns (as shown graphically by Quath’s post of July 8), and the patterns of relatedness shown by ERVs are generally consistent with each other and with what we know about relatedness from other sources. For instance, we’ve found several ERVs shared by all primates, and several shared only by Humans and Chimps, but we’ve never found any shared only by (say) Humans and macaques.

So this brings me to another possible alternative explanation:

3) God inserted the ERV into the same place in the genome of the various species being tested.

Problem: OK, but why? Why insert such sequences? They don’t do anything for the organisms in which they’re found. They instead match sequences used by viruses that parasitize those organisms. And why insert such sequences into the same places in the genomes of numerous species? And why do so in a manner to consistently indicate the same pattern of relatedness? Assuming God exists, He must either be deliberately trying to fool us, or else deliberately trying to clue us in. You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on your own interpretation of God’s nature, which you think it is.

OK. I think I’ll go with alternative explanation #4) The ERV was inserted into some 98 million Americans who received one or more doses of polio or similar vaccine during the period (1955–1963) when some of the vaccines were contaminated with SV40 or some other yet undiscovered monkey/ape/gorilla virus.
:-D
 
Please be aware that Americans do not make up the entire human population...
 
unred typo said:
OK. I think I’ll go with alternative explanation #4) The ERV was inserted into some 98 million Americans who received one or more doses of polio or similar vaccine during the period (1955–1963) when some of the vaccines were contaminated with SV40 or some other yet undiscovered monkey/ape/gorilla virus.
:-D

Wow...
 
Dunzo said:
Please be aware that Americans do not make up the entire human population...

I don’t believe that Americans are the only people that were vaccinated with contaminated serums. Do you have the figures as to what nationality the subjects were that were used in the tests for the retroviruses in human DNA, ( that was identical with that of some primates) ? I don't remember the scope of the testing, how extensive it was, or if various nationalities were used. I also don't believe any mention was made as to whether they also might have been given the vaccinations or had ancestors who were also given vaccinations contaminated with the same virus. I just thought it was interesting how something so simple could be overlooked that would totally skew the argument, and there are probably many other possibilities that would negate the findings besides the three put out as the only possible conclusions.
 
Re:

Cirbryn said:
The thing about ERVs is that, assuming we understand them correctly, they should show patterns of relatedness. The groups that share an ERV (in a specific place in the genome) should be more closely related to each other than they are to groups that don’t share that ERV. As it happens they do show these patterns (as shown graphically by Quath’s post of July 8), and the patterns of relatedness shown by ERVs are generally consistent with each other and with what we know about relatedness from other sources. For instance, we’ve found several ERVs shared by all primates, and several shared only by Humans and Chimps, but we’ve never found any shared only by (say) Humans and macaques.
I think that is precisely the reason why you can't have reason option #3 before. IF the ERV is present in groups that are closely related to each other, it is pretty consistent with the claim that there was a common ancestor. If the ERV is NOT present in groups which are not that closely related, it shows that the two groups might have had a common ancestor before the virus which caused the appearance of ERV in the genome.

Cirbryn said:
So this brings me to another possible alternative explanation:

3) God inserted the ERV into the same place in the genome of the various species being tested.

Problem: OK, but why? Why insert such sequences? They don’t do anything for the organisms in which they’re found. They instead match sequences used by viruses that parasitize those organisms. And why insert such sequences into the same places in the genomes of numerous species? And why do so in a manner to consistently indicate the same pattern of relatedness? Assuming God exists, He must either be deliberately trying to fool us, or else deliberately trying to clue us in. You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on your own interpretation of God’s nature, which you think it is.
I like the part where you say "...He must either be deliberately trying to fool us, or else deliberately trying to clue us in", well I believe that the clue would be that God is the designer and he even designed evolution.
That doesn't make God less powerful, it makes him more powerful because it shows an extremely high complexity of precision bioengineering, such that has never been witnessed in any test lab before! It's easy to say God created a man and a woman, but it's genius to say God engineered all species to evolve. God created life with the desire to survive, to adopt and to overcome with any resources available, and finally to seek the answers!
 
Back
Top