Did humans descend from other primates?

[McCulloch]

Man did not descend from the primates.

Did humans descend from other primates?
Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity?
Please cite evidence.

[Grumpy]

Berny

Replicating, Synthesizing, manipulating, copying isn't creating. Not even close IMO.

Then create is a word without meaning.

So what you're saying is it's a waste of time us trying to debate anything because your interpretation of words is simply to make them conform to anything you wish at any given time. This makes any discussion about anything totally irrelevant unfortunately. Not even dictionarys are a reliable source now because the language/s has been changed to accommodate various scenarios? Total confusion is the unfortunate result

It is a common(in several meanings of that word)tactic to accuse your opponent of things you are actually doing. Thanks for the perfect example.

Grumpy

[LiamOS]

And even if we did 'create' life, it would only prove that creation requires the intervention of an intelligence, give we are intelligent, and made in the image of God.

This is the definition of arguing from ignorance.
Not only that, but given such a stance I suggest you simply ignore anything scientific, as you've clearly rejected the basis of science.
You've just implicitly admitted that nothing we do will change your mind. Am I correct?

[Berny]

And even if we did 'create' life, it would only prove that creation requires the intervention of an intelligence, give we are intelligent, and made in the image of God.

This is the definition of arguing from ignorance.
Not only that, but given such a stance I suggest you simply ignore anything scientific, as you've clearly rejected the basis of science.
You've just implicitly admitted that nothing we do will change your mind. Am I correct?

Honnestly, would anything I or anyone else do or say change your mind??????
All this childish point scoring goes on and on and on.... and regardless of what we do or say or think, absolute truth and reality will still be absolute truth and morality.

[LiamOS]

Honnestly, would anything I or anyone else do or say change your mind??????

Yes.
My opinions have been changed multiple times in my time on this forum.

The more pertinent question is would you, given your previous statement, change your mind about creationism?
You were using it as a point that we were unable to create life, and then asserted that our creation of life would further make your point. Logically, this is ludicrous as it implied an intelligent designer each way; something for which there is absolutely no evidence(Or is there? Feel free to show me up on that.)

All this childish point scoring goes on and on and on....

It only looks like point scoring with your goggles on. From my perspective, your posts look equivalent. Understanding this concept helps one debating those who hold polar positions.

and regardless of what we do or say or think, absolute truth and reality will still be absolute truth and morality.

Since there's a disconnect in that sentence, I'm not entirely sure whether or not you're asserting that there is an objective morality. If you are, I challenge you to support your claim.

[Mugview]

Berny

Man made version? Man altered/manipulated version to be precise, developed from things which already exist.

Things like phosphorus, carbon, oxygen, etc.

"...this scientific team headed by Drs. Craig Venter, Hamilton Smith and Clyde Hutchison have achieved the final step in their quest to create the first synthetic bacterial cell. In a publication in Science magazine, Daniel Gibson, Ph.D. and a team of 23 additional researchers outline the steps to synthesize a 1.08 million base pair Mycoplasma mycoides genome, constructed from four bottles of chemicals that make up DNA. This synthetic genome has been "booted up" in a cell to create the first cell controlled completely by a synthetic genome. "

Like I said, "synthetic", man made, artificial, non-natural. They created the DNA from scratch, injected it in denucleated cells and had the cells follow the man made DNA and reproduce.

Grumpy

Once the "programming language" is understood, it is not difficult to create a program. There are only "four chemicals that make up DNA", so seems like "quarternary", but in fact it is also like "binary" with only two pairings possible of the four chemicals. Scientists can construct a chain of DNA using common chemical reactions of these chemicals (nucleic acids), just like to arrange code "0" and "1" to form computing codes (for example: 10101010, 11100011 etc.) The big problems are:
- it has to be injected to a "living" cell to see the effect
- different species processes the code differently

What is known now is that DNA is a real code, a biological code, that living organisms can read and execute.
In organisms, DNA chains are stored in form of chromosomes in the nucleus of every cell. The chromosomes are heavily guarded and checked regularly for any damage. Although occasional discrepancies can occur (due to so-called mutation, infection etc.) in small parts of chromosomes, it is definitely very very difficult to produce general changes, especially to modify the code sequence, elongate the sequence, inserting multiple codes in different places at the same time or even reducing the codes. Each organism has unique sequence and distribution of DNA.

There are intensive studies to see how one single-celled organism may become another single-celled organism that is not from the same family. So far there is no breakthrough yet. Each single-celled type of organism has a distinct sequence that cannot be readily traced to a single ancestor as speculated. With the known rate of mutations, if the general change might happen, it would take not billion, but trillion years to do, much more than the age of the universe. This is not to say that biologically it is very very difficult to even induce multiple mutations to an organism without killing it. Almost all changes to DNA sequence of a single-celled organism resulted in death. Several successful changes turned out to be found naturally, so it is within the tolerance level of the organism.

The "synthetic" DNA, made in the laboratory, actually had to follow precise sequence of the native DNA in the organism, in order for the organism to reproduce. Thus, the synthetic DNA is actually a duplicate or a copy of a working code, not a randomly created sequence.

[wiploc]

Once the "programming language" is understood, it is not difficult to create a program. There are only "four chemicals that make up DNA", so seems like "quarternary", but in fact it is also like "binary" with only two pairings possible of the four chemicals. Scientists can construct a chain of DNA using common chemical reactions of these chemicals (nucleic acids), just like to arrange code "0" and "1" to form computing codes (for example: 10101010, 11100011 etc.)

It's "quarternary" because the pair can fit either frontwards or backwards.

If the first base is T-A, the second one can be T-A or A-T or C-G or G-C.

[Mugview]

Once the "programming language" is understood, it is not difficult to create a program. There are only "four chemicals that make up DNA", so seems like "quarternary", but in fact it is also like "binary" with only two pairings possible of the four chemicals. Scientists can construct a chain of DNA using common chemical reactions of these chemicals (nucleic acids), just like to arrange code "0" and "1" to form computing codes (for example: 10101010, 11100011 etc.)

It's "quarternary" because the pair can fit either frontwards or backwards.

If the first base is T-A, the second one can be T-A or A-T or C-G or G-C.

Thank you for the additional explanation.

My previous post stated:
"...seems like "quarternary", but in fact it is also like "binary"..."

Hence, it covers both properties as you describes.
Isn't it amazing to see such neat codes in all living organisms? The codes are not found in dead rocks, metal alloys, crystallines, etc., but even the smallest living organisms are controlled by the same programming language.
Just wondering if it all comes by chance.

[wiploc]

Once the "programming language" is understood, it is not difficult to create a program. There are only "four chemicals that make up DNA", so seems like "quarternary", but in fact it is also like "binary" with only two pairings possible of the four chemicals. Scientists can construct a chain of DNA using common chemical reactions of these chemicals (nucleic acids), just like to arrange code "0" and "1" to form computing codes (for example: 10101010, 11100011 etc.)

It's "quarternary" because the pair can fit either frontwards or backwards.

If the first base is T-A, the second one can be T-A or A-T or C-G or G-C.

Thank you for the additional explanation.

My previous post stated:
"...seems like "quarternary", but in fact it is also like "binary"..."

Hence, it covers both properties as you describes.
Isn't it amazing to see such neat codes in all living organisms? The codes are not found in dead rocks, metal alloys, crystallines, etc., but even the smallest living organisms are controlled by the same programming language.
Just wondering if it all comes by chance.

You wrote, "just like to arrange code "0" and "1" to form computing codes (for example: 10101010, 11100011 etc." That's wrong.

[Goat]

Hence, it covers both properties as you describes.
Isn't it amazing to see such neat codes in all living organisms? The codes are not found in dead rocks, metal alloys, crystallines, etc., but even the smallest living organisms are controlled by the same programming language.
Just wondering if it all comes by chance.

I's not really a code, but rather chemistry that allows cause protiens to form in specific shapes. It is partly change, but it is chance that has what is known as a 'filter' applied so there are non-random results. That filter is known as 'natural selection'.

[Mugview]

Hence, it covers both properties as you describes.
Isn't it amazing to see such neat codes in all living organisms? The codes are not found in dead rocks, metal alloys, crystallines, etc., but even the smallest living organisms are controlled by the same programming language.
Just wondering if it all comes by chance.

I's not really a code, but rather chemistry that allows cause protiens to form in specific shapes. It is partly change, but it is chance that has what is known as a 'filter' applied so there are non-random results. That filter is known as 'natural selection'.

Chemistry also follows a strict set of predetermined laws. The number of electrons per layer, fermions per quantum states etc, are rules-of-the-game preset to keep the universe in order. The "filter" is also a preset to favor one protein conformation against the other (despite higher activation energy), specific affinity to certain optical configuration etc. and so "natural selection" has a set of prerequisites.

We have a consensus that it produces non-random results.

With more understanding of the system, it could be said "predictable based on the scientific laws".

Who set these laws or it appeared per chance?