First 'resurrected' gene found in humans

goddammit three sheets. The second I saw this headline, my intention was to jump in nand rail off the same nonsense in your first sentence. Way to beat me to the punch. As to the article:

I'm curious as to what implication this has for the Intelligent design standby arguments that evolution is either 1. only deleterious or 2. the "the ability to make change x already existed meaning that it is not really an adaptation"

(I know they're contradictory, but they're just a couple of gems I've seen dropped on the newsvine and Sciam pages over the past few months)

What? I happen to adhere to intelligent design, I believe in God, that he created everything. This view is not mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution! In fact they can work seamlessly together. I do not deny the big bang or evolution theories, I simply believe that all of it was started, and guided by God.

Its the young-earth creation-only types that would have issue with this study.

John, there is a revolt against organized religion and some will look for anything at all to announce to the world that they can prove there is no "higher power" than us. This article is certainly no smoking gun.

We just do not know enough to make a scientific statement about creation.

We must be careful to distinguish between prehistoric man and modern man. Biologists classify man as derived from the family Hominidae (erect two-legged creatures), of the genus homo, of species homosapiens, and modern man of species homosapiens-sapiens. The Bible does not treat man as a subdivision of any phylum, but as a separate phylum in himself embodying advanced characteristics possessed by no other phylum. He is thus a very broadly generalized creature with innumerable physical, mental, and spiritual potentialities unknown among other creatures. It also makes clear that the Creator hath made of one blood all nations of men . . . on the face of the earth . . . determined the times and the bounds of their habitation. That they should seek the Lord (Acts 17:26). This was done so that all modern men might claim the blood atonement of the Son of Man as propitiation for their sins. While it implies the existence of a prehistoric man population, or perhaps several different bloods (or species), it mentions nothing of sin forgiveness for any of them. They were most likely a different phylum than that of modern man. This is shown further by the Creator’s first instructions to Adam to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it (Gen. 1:28); that is, to replace the prehistoric population which had perished, and that he possessed capabilities even to the point of subduing the former Lucifer which prehistoric men did not. It seems fairly obvious the prehistoric man phylum was supplied with some reason and intelligence, brained and medium-brained, barbaric and semi-civilized, but none approached modern primitives in intellectual potentials. Man, from his beginning, was a tool maker because man was and is a thinking, reasoning animal. No other animal compares with man as to ratio of brain size to body size, although some large animals have larger brains than man. But modern man also possessed “living soul” giving him inventiveness, creative ability and God-consciousness, lacking in prehistoric man, which explains why modern man conceived more cultural advantages in 100 years than all prehistoric man in thousands.

Your box lunch dude....... the facts remain: The most careful examination of fossils shows that prehistoric men, like all other phyla, were without prototype, of sudden origin, and were not reproduced by another species. There are no missing links. Variegation in species was usually a drawn out process involving many reproductions (not mutations). The horse, for example, appeared suddenly but variety in horses developed over many centuries as a function of the Logos in adjusting the horse to different conditions and the conditions to the horse. Modification in species has progressed in both directions, to colors lighter or darker, to limbs and muscles both longer and shorter than the original, and to organs larger or smaller, but the sexual reproducing factor remained constant as a residual factor while the instinct pattern was maintained as an external function of life energy. Thus there were probably also several variations of some species of prehistoric man, as to size, habits, and culture, just as there are among modern man today. But there were possibly several species, which would explain the great difference between their fossils.

Can't we have a discussion about science without bringing god(s) into it? Christ on crutches, 3sheets, look what you've started! ; )

3sheets, look what you've started! ; )

I'm innocent, innocent I say!

Whenever there is an article on the vine about science that reinforces Darwin or DNA the religious nut jobs make it clear that the science is some how wrong or that it is some how part of 'god's plan'.

The most careful examination of fossils shows that prehistoric men, like all other phyla, were without prototype, of sudden origin, and were not reproduced by another species.

BUZZER. Ohhh, sorry that is INCORRECT. Just because you say it is so doesn't mean it is so. I will give you a bit to let that sink in.

"The most careful examination of fossils shows that prehistoric men, like all other phyla, were without prototype, of sudden origin, and were not reproduced by another species."

You mean... the aliens didn't put us here???? Darn! Now I gotta go learn to believe something else...

Can't we have a discussion about science without bringing god(s) into it?

Oh please, can't we????? I'm beginning to hate God and the Bible!

What? I happen to adhere to intelligent design, I believe in God, that he created everything. This view is not mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution!

Religious beliefs evolve too!

#4.14: "Oh please, can't we????? I'm beginning to hate God and the Bible!"

I can't help thinking that God would be saying the same thing... He has my deepest sympathy.

#6: I vote for body fur (just imagine how much you'd save if you didn't have to buy clothing), and webbed feet (useful for swimming).

:-)

Oh no, have you seen my icon? On no, please, I don't want to be a dionsaur, nooooooooooooooooooo!

Seriously tho, gills would be nice for swimming.

#6: I vote for body fur (just imagine how much you'd save if you didn't have to buy clothing), and webbed feet (useful for swimming).

Ick @!$%# no gross ewwwww. I'm already trying to save up the three grand for complete body-hair removal surgery. Please don't advocate making people look even ickier.

:)

#6.3:"Please don't advocate making people look even ickier."

But just think of all the flaws that would be hidden under thick fur! Zits, birthmarks, wrinkles....

:-)

I wouldn't mind feathers to go with my gills. Can we go back to our junkDNA that far?

Oh, yes... feathers would be lovely!!!! And gills. Wow... I'm really liking on this!

JunkDNA the ultimate in make-overs!!!!

But just think of all the flaws that would be hidden under thick fur! Zits, birthmarks, wrinkles....

PFFT! A marginal amount of body hair is my only flaw. :)

ZomZom,

Really??? Show us!

Oh, yes... feathers would be lovely!!!! And gills. Wow... I'm really liking on this!

All mammal fetuses grow gills in the early stages, so the trick would be to keep that gene from turning off. I don't know about the feathers, but it might be a nice look.

How 'bout four or six breasts -- extras occur often enough so this gene is not totally dormant and could (theoretically) be switched on pretty easily.

"How 'bout four or six breasts-" Yes, that should help breastfeed the octuplets people are now having.

And make lingerie vendors very happy.

I might need so me help putting it on and taking it off...that would not be a bra I would sleep in.

Let's get serious here people- Body fur? 6 boobies?

I CAN NOT believe there hasn't been a single mention of a prehensile tail.

Or fangs and horns!

I CAN NOT believe there hasn't been a single mention of a prehensile tail.

I mentioned "big fluffy tail" in #6. I guess I'm more about the aesthetics. A prehensile would come in pretty handy some days, though.

#6.10: "How 'bout four or six breasts..."

Must be a guy saying that... no woman who has ever had to wear these gawdawful harnesses called "brassieres" would ever wish for more than the two breasts she now has... but I rather like the prehensile tail idea...