Why There's No Design #104 - Breast Cancer and the Mouse
Budikka666
"Growing evidence suggests that breast cancer may be partly
caused by infection with a retrovirus known as human mammary tumor
virus (HMTV). It is closely linked to mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV)
which causes breast cancer in mice. MMTV and HMTV are 95% genetically
identical, and MMTV is known to jump species.
"Mus domesticus, the common house mouse, has been a commensal
pest with formerly nomadic humans since the dawn of farming and those
permanent settlements we call home. What is most fascinating is that
the geographic distribution of Mus domesticus overlaps quite
consistently with areas of the world that have the highest incidence
of human breast cancer.
"For example, North and South America, Western Europe, and North
Africa are the prime locations inhabited by the house mouse, and not
coincidentally are the regions of the world that have the highest
rates of human breast cancer. Laboratories have confirmed a 660-base
pair sequence of MMTV genome known as the env gene in 30-40% of breast
cancer tissue samples from patients in the U.S., Italy, Mexico,
Brazil, and Argentina. Env is found in over 76% of samples from
Tunisia."
Recent genetic mapping has demonstrated that mice have 80% of our DNA
(or we theirs) with each species having only some 300 genes that the
other didn't have. Creationists have no intelligent explanation for
this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
What it means is that since the mouse and ourselves split from our
common ancestor, we each have diversified only 300 genes out of some
25,000 each. Maybe these are newly developed genes or maybe we lost
some that the mouse didn't and vice versa.
Let's make it tough on evolution and say that our common ancestor had
a basic set of genes and in order for it to become the mouse that we
know or become a modern human, it had to "grow" 300 new genes.
We know there were critters not dissimilar to mice running around in
the finale to the dinosaur era. In fact, similar creatures existed at
least 75 million years ago. A while ago, part of the DNA of one of
them was recently reconstructed on computer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4056559.stm
But let's make the numbers round and simple and let's set a starting
point 60 million years ago and say this is where we and mice took
off. We each had to grow 300 new genes in 60 million years.
Creationists like to say that a gene has, on average, 100,000 base
pairs, so let's use that number. 100,000 base pairs times 300 genes
means we had to grow a maximum of 30 million base pairs making new
genes in 60 million years. That's one new base pair every two years!
How hard is that? Not hard at all given the breeding rate of mice and
other small mammals that kick-started this. Not hard at all.
Evolution doesn't quite work in this mathematical step-wise fashion
(developmental evolution is increasingly showing that so-called
macroevolution proceeds more by employing existing genes (or spare
duplicates of them) for new uses than creating brand new ones from
scratch, but just for the sake of argument, what mechanism would
prevent a base pair mutation arising every two years, especially in a
starting population that breeds as quickly as mice?
So the evidence shows that not only do we have a common ancestor with
modern mice, but that mice have been growing up in human communities
for as long, if not longer, than dogs and cats. And now it's
suggesting that maybe we've been getting thoroughly unpleasant viruses
from the mice.
Is this evidence of design? Is this evidence that some loving
designer created us, created mice, then gave the mouse a virus that
likes to jump into humans? Why would a loving designer actually do a
mean-spirited thing like that?
Or does this mean there simply is no intelligent design, just
unintelligent, unplanned, undirected evolution?
Budikka
Loco Motion
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1173632238....@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> Is this evidence of design? Is this evidence that some loving
> designer created us, created mice, then gave the mouse a virus that
> likes to jump into humans? Why would a loving designer actually do a
> mean-spirited thing like that?
Because, the fundies will tell you, that nasty b*tch Eve was tricked and
beguiled by a talking snake and bit into that fruit about 7000 years ago.
;-) You know, when one of our children are tricked and beguiled by talking
animals we're supposed to kill them.......... glad I'm not a fundy.
> Or does this mean there simply is no intelligent design, just
> unintelligent, unplanned, undirected evolution?
There is nothing intelligent about creating horrors like breast cancer. It
would be something a sociopathic sadist would do.
>
> Budikka
>
JCool
ravages the world like it does now. If you put some honest effort into
it (without sarcasm and a mocking attitude) you might learn something
that changes your life. Consider it.
Loco Motion
"JCool" <Rebirth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173646474.7...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> Wow, if you guys actually read the Bible,
I did read the bible. Cover to cover. What about you?
you might know why sin
> ravages the world like it does now.
Sin doesn't ravage the world... greed and religious intolerance does.
If you put some honest effort into
> it (without sarcasm and a mocking attitude) you might learn something
> that changes your life. Consider it.
Look at the "believers" on these groups and you'll see how religion destroys
people......... Antonio L Santana from Camden NJ, a Jehovah's Witness is
trying to have Carol's husband assaulted to "punish" and destroy the family
for example.
>
Budikka666
Like what? Name one thing in the Bible that will change my life.
I've read the Bible cover-to-cover and it's the most assinine
collection of juvenile bullshit, inane lies and arrant nonsense I've
ever read.
Why is it that you Bible thumpers always seek to deflect the issue?
The issue in this thread is what's posted in the opening message.
Address that. Rebut that. Refute that if you can.
Or have the decency and honesty to admit that you cannot and all
you've posted here is the most pathetic and transparent attempt
imaginable to deflect attention from your appalling incompetence and
blind, unsupportable beliefs.
Budikka
johac
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/2wfxdq
<snips>
> So the evidence shows that not only do we have a common ancestor with
> modern mice, but that mice have been growing up in human communities
> for as long, if not longer, than dogs and cats. And now it's
> suggesting that maybe we've been getting thoroughly unpleasant viruses
> from the mice.
>
> Is this evidence of design? Is this evidence that some loving
> designer created us, created mice, then gave the mouse a virus that
> likes to jump into humans? Why would a loving designer actually do a
> mean-spirited thing like that?
It would have to be a designer who was unintelligent, without a plan,
and no direction.
>
> Or does this mean there simply is no intelligent design, just
> unintelligent, unplanned, undirected evolution?
I see. The 'designer's' name was Evolution!
>
> Budikka
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
mike3
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1173632238....@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Is this evidence of design? Is this evidence that some loving
> > designer created us, created mice, then gave the mouse a virus that
> > likes to jump into humans? Why would a loving designer actually do a
> > mean-spirited thing like that?
>
> Because, the fundies will tell you, that nasty b*tch Eve was tricked and
> beguiled by a talking snake and bit into that fruit about 7000 years ago.
> ;-) You know, when one of our children are tricked and beguiled by talking
> animals we're supposed to kill them.......... glad I'm not a fundy.
>
But why don't you believe in *any* sort of God, including *non*-
fundamentalist conceptions?
mike3
Never mind that Genesis is a moral story, not a literal recounting of
history in any way, shape, or form. Thus we have to interpret it in
that context.
Robibnikoff
No thanks, I really try to avoid bullshit at all costs.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Holy Moses
"mike3" wrote > On Mar 11, 11:44 am, "Loco Motion" wrote:
> > Because, the fundies will tell you, that nasty b*tch Eve was tricked and
> > beguiled by a talking snake and bit into that fruit about 7000 years
ago.
> > ;-) You know, when one of our children are tricked and beguiled by
talking
> > animals we're supposed to kill them.......... glad I'm not a fundy.
> >
>
> But why don't you believe in *any* sort of God, including *non*-
> fundamentalist conceptions?
Simply, for the same reasons you don't believe in *any* sort of god other
than the one of your chosen belief system. Is that so hard to understand?
You are just one god short of us. With a little work on your part you could
remedy that problem.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
mike3
I don't consider the belief in God a "problem". You might, I don't.
Witchtower Wendy
"mike3" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176364888....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I hope you don't take god seriously then and have your children stoned to
death if they're disobedient, or consider selling your daughters,....... or
keeping slaves.