sonofspong Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Theres a Turkish family that apearently walks on all fours due to an odd genetic condition. Check it out. Time-warp family who walk on all fours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Wow... that was incredibly interesting. Yet more ammo against the Creationists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redneck22 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 This story is a bizarre mixture of medical facts and evolutionary imagination. The closest Prof. Humphreys gets to the truth is the claim that the affected children kept walking as infants. However, that has nothing to do with evolution. Human children crawl on all fours before they stand and walk because they must wait until their brains mature and they develop strength in their legs and trunk. Because of a genetic defect the Turkish children's brains did not develop properly, so they continue to use their arms to compensate for their lack of balance and co-ordination in their legs. The idea that progression from crawling to walking represents an evolutionary transition is a belief in recapitulation, i.e. that human development from conception to adult is a repetition of evolution from amoeba to man. This is a totally discredited idea based on fraudulent claims made by the nineteenth century evolutionist Ernst Haeckel. Cerebellar ataxia is a rare genetic defect, but it is likely that in the remote part of Turkey where the family live there has been inbreeding, so genetic defects are more likely to be expressed. This is a sad reminder that the human race is degenerating downwards, not evolving upwards, and it is outrageous of evolutionists to exploit the misfortune of this family to falsely promote their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasemonkey Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 This is a sad reminder that the human race is degenerating downwards, not evolving upwards, and it is outrageous of evolutionists to exploit the misfortune of this family to falsely promote their beliefs. hmmmm... never would have thought I would have found any platform I would agree with the redneck on, but I agree that the story probably doesn't do much for proof of "evolution" one way or another, except perhaps in regards to study of the kinesology of the family in relation to early proto-human species. although I gotta admit I really got a chuckle to hear our resident christian make the "it is outrageous of evolutionists to..." comment about much of anything. creationism kind of "rules the roost" on making outrageous claims; picking obscure things that happen to agree with thier standpoint while utterly ignoring anything to the contrary is more the creationist forte... this goes wayyyyyy beyond the "pot & kettle" thing! This story is a bizarre mixture of medical facts and evolutionary imagination. I don't know much about rednecks personal views on TOE vs creationism, but a statement like this coming from anyone who believes in talking snakes, and that man was made from dirt like a divine pottery project or something is pretty freaking amusing... I can divine some of rednecks personal views in that he points out that the condition is much more likely to be attributed to genetic defects due to inbreeding (which is likely true), but then says that it's a sad reminder that we are "degenerating downward..." does anyone else notice the flaw in that logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGJ@ReligionisBullshit Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 "It's not genetics, it's God's punishment for them being...uh...Turks!" Future Xtian reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redneck22 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 [ coming from anyone who believes in talking snakes,] and do you believe monkeys could talk on their own? that would make us both crazy. [i can divine some of rednecks personal views in that he points out that the condition is much more likely to be attributed to genetic defects due to inbreeding (which is likely true), but then says that it's a sad reminder that we are "degenerating downward..."] Well the logic is if Adam were created genetically perfect, Cain could marry his sister with no defects, as environmental factors broke down their health, lifespans shortened, these build up in the genome until close marriage is forbiden. Now with petrochemicals, drug taking, eating degenerated foods, break down in atmosphere etc our genetics are inherently worse than before. Cancer, asthma,diabetes etc etc all on the increase, passed on genetically, thats why doctors always ask what your parents and relatives suffer from in order to assess your likely hood of contracting those diseases. If you look at the fossil record the creatures are far bigger and probably genetically superior to the "living fossil" descendants which are runts by comparison. Many creatures grow larger with age indicating the fossil creatures lived far longer and now have degenerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasemonkey Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 [ coming from anyone who believes in talking snakes,] and do you believe monkeys could talk on their own? that would make us both crazy. ummmm... Dewd.... I hear monkeys talk every day. Those of the hairless variety to be specific. If you have trouble believing that we evolved from lower primates, maybe you need to hang out in some of the auto shops I've worked in... Well the logic is if Adam were created genetically perfect, Cain could marry his sister with no defects, as environmental factors broke down their health, lifespans shortened, these build up in the genome until close marriage is forbiden. Well, I'm an auto mechanic, not a molecular biologist; but that statement doesn't follow any sort of logic I can understand & still hold a straight face while doing it. It sounds like a great comic book story, but from what little I know about selective breeding it just doesn't stand up. But I don't really know enough about the science to carry a competent debate on those lines, so I'll meet you in the middle for philosophical grounds. If god created a perfect DNA specimen in Adam and Eve, that would mean he either a) never meant for them to reproduce, or b: he decided to change the laws of nature after the "original sin." That would mean god created an imperfection. Would a perfect god even be capable of that?! Do we really want to get into a "can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it" comparison?! I love sci-fi as much as the next guy, but that one doesn't hold much water in the "plausability" dept, but I can give you points for creativity. When you try to stack facts to fit the preconceived notion, you run into problems. "God Drives a Flying Saucer" and "The 12th Planet" are equally plausible; if you haven't read them, give them a try ...you can get a good idea where starting with the conclusion can get you. Now with petrochemicals, drug taking, eating degenerated foods, break down in atmosphere etc our genetics are inherently worse than before. Cancer, asthma,diabetes etc etc all on the increase, passed on genetically, thats why doctors always ask what your parents and relatives suffer from in order to assess your likely hood of contracting those diseases. "break down in atmosphere," huh? I'm glad to record you as a believer in global warming at least. Actually, you get points here. I agree that environmental factors are certainly contributing to a number of defects. If you are trying to tell me that the reason we no longer live to be 600 years old like they did back in the OT times is due to the Roman's petrochemical factories for building the aquaducts, you kinda lost me. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of the OT, I don't recall any other data suggesting that anyone ever lived six centuries back in the "good old days." Your statement still doesn't hold much water for the assertation the genetic degradation is on a one-way trip towards catastrophe. Simply because it isn't. thanks to the age of transportation, inbreeding is getting more and more scarce, not more prevalent. More people in general are living longer now than ever before. The top old age is still remaining basicly the same. Genetic mutation is a two-way street, a great deal of the mutations are beneficial. As viruses mutate, so do our immune systems to accomodate them. If you look at the fossil record the creatures are far bigger and probably genetically superior to the "living fossil" descendants which are runts by comparison. Many creatures grow larger with age indicating the fossil creatures lived far longer and now have degenerated. At least I know now you aren't a young-earth creationist. Man, you gotta quit reading only the material from the discovey institute and branch out a little bit. Bigger is not always better, and very few creatures continue getting larger until death. I'll let you have the "probably," just because probabilities is what science is all about, but from a natural selection viewpoint it's absurd. Anything that kept growing larger and larger would eventually lose any food gathering advantages; that wouldn't exactly be a genetic "superiority." Natural catastrophe, such as a meteor strike or massive volcanic activity would give the survival advantage to smaller creatures. It isn't "degeneration," but "adaption." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGJ@ReligionisBullshit Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I think he is confused on which diseases and conditions are passed down by genetics and what is influenced by environment. When we are born, and until adolescence, we have what is called a thymus gland in our chest, the mediastinum. This is what helps build our immunity to allergies and other diseases. By disinfecting our world with anti-bacterial soaps, cleaners, pesticides, pasturizing and all but sticking our kids into a plastic bubble during pre-adolescence we reduce their ability to be able to fight off ailments like asthma, allergies, and whatnot. Diseases, themselves, are not passed down through genetics. Only the susceptability is. If your father had Benign Prostate Hyperplasia then you will have the susceptiblity for it as well, but it doesn't mean you will have it, only the increased risk of developing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasemonkey Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I think he is confused on which diseases and conditions are passed down by genetics and what is influenced by environment. When we are born, and until adolescence, we have what is called a thymus gland in our chest, the mediastinum. This is what helps build our immunity to allergies and other diseases. By disinfecting our world with anti-bacterial soaps, cleaners, pesticides, pasturizing and all but sticking our kids into a plastic bubble during pre-adolescence we reduce their ability to be able to fight off ailments like asthma, allergies, and whatnot. Diseases, themselves, are not passed down through genetics. Only the susceptability is. If your father had Benign Prostate Hyperplasia then you will have the susceptiblity for it as well, but it doesn't mean you will have it, only the increased risk of developing it. I don't think redneck is confused at all; his mind appears to be thoroughly made up. Actually though, I have no problem admitting to the fact I'm a little confused myself. To postulate we began with perfect DNA, and inbreeding was fine until environmental stressors caused genetic degradation sounds really silly. I just need someone who knows a little more than me to help fill in some of the blanks as to concrete facts why. The whole "bigger must have been better" falls flat regardless, but as I said, I love sci-fi! I know in selective breeding, one selects the animals with the traits they want & keep breeding them until they breed true. This carries it's own problems because it can lead to defects since there is a smaller genepool to choose from. That's why I prefer to have a mutt over a purebred dog (ie german sheppards inherrantly have hip problems later in life, pugs respiratory problems, etc). The thought that we all started perfect just sounds pretty crazy on so many levels... I can't give a competent answer to it, I just know when something sounds all wrong. anyone care to help me fill in some of the blanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGJ@ReligionisBullshit Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I know in selective breeding, one selects the animals with the traits they want & keep breeding them until they breed true. This carries it's own problems because it can lead to defects since there is a smaller genepool to choose from. That's why I prefer to have a mutt over a purebred dog (ie german sheppards inherrantly have hip problems later in life, pugs respiratory problems, etc). The thought that we all started perfect just sounds pretty crazy on so many levels... I can't give a competent answer to it, I just know when something sounds all wrong. anyone care to help me fill in some of the blanks? Accepting evolution of species through natural selection is paramount to this sort of debate. If one believes through faith alone that we are born perfect and degrade from there then it does follow the second law of thermodynamics. States tend to evolve to a more chaotic one. Entropy. At some point, assuming we started with a clean and perfect DNA code and given that genetic errors are passed along through reproduction, the human race would evolve and cease to exist in its former state. Thusly, believing in creation involves believing in evolution since we are not the same as we were even a hundred years ago. Christians don't need to get their panties in a wad because I haven’t said that man evolved from apes, which isn't evolution anyway since the theory does not hold to that conclusion. On the hominid evolutionary tree, human evolution from apes involves jumping from one limb to the other side of the damn tree. Inbreeding problems, called "Inbreeding Depression," are caused by the alleles of genes. In every generation DNA is believed to contain around 4 mutations. That number is, of course, not absolute but, very likely a good average. Of these 4, about 1.5 of these could cause serious harmful affects that could preclude an offspring from reproducing or even living. The reason we are not all dead is because by reproducing with people who are not related to us, hence do not have the same alleles, the process can eliminate or reduce the chance of this happening. How do I know for a fact that it works? Because we are not all dead! Some of these alleles that we get from those who are not related to us are beneficial, hence, we survive to reproduce. If not, we wouldn't be here. The problem now a day is that we have the technology to cheat. We can live longer, reproduce, artificially inseminate, replace faulty organs that our DNA gave us with more healthy ones, and help to ensure that these bad alleles will be passed along to further generations. At one point, we were a strong race because only the strong survived. Technology has made us live longer, but at the same time has made us weaker. If we all started out by inbreeding the species would not have survived long since there would be no variation to the alleles that we inherit. Instead, racial diversity, chasing off competitive males, and the like has contributed to our survival. At an early point in our evolution we had to have reproduced with those who were like us, but different, albeit subtly or we would have died out long ago. As time passes and discoveries in anthropology progress we will find it more likely that we breed with others on limbs of the hominid evolutionary tree that were close to our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasemonkey Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Thanks very much JGJ! ...awesome reply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage Nabooru Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 As much as I do believe in evolution, I really think that this is a genetic condition that is simply that: a genetic condition. We have found families whose members are almost entirely made up of persons with "lobster claw" hands, but that doesn't mean we're closely related to hermit crabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts