Blood = No Chimps in the Human Tree
All-Seeing-I
Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
blood types present in humans today? If Adam and Eve were heterozygous
for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there
must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
biblical model of human origins.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>Bood types say "no chimps".
>
>Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
>Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
>blood types present in humans today? If Adam and Eve were heterozygous
>for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
>allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
>had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
>Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
>for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
>and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
>ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
Why do you let the ICR tell these silly stories without acknowledging
that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Blood type is
only one little thing we inherit.
>If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there
>must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
>was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
>Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
>whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
>or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
>descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
>eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
>biblical model of human origins.
>
>http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
The biblical model of human origins was proven false years ago. The only
way to believe what they are selling is to delude yourself. The ICR
knows that it is lying to you.
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:32:55 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> >Bood types say "no chimps".
>
> >Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> >Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> >blood types present in humans today? If Adam and Eve were heterozygous
> >for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> >allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> >had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
> >Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> >for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> >and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> >ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
> Why do you let the ICR tell these silly stories without acknowledging
> that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Blood type is
> only one little thing we inherit.
>
Blood type is pretty major.
We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
Kleuskes & Moos
TomS
<6d1c910f-500e-4807...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I stated..."
But Eve was made from Adam, and therefore had the same blood type.
And, according to creationism, mutations are bad.
And, there is more to blood-typing than just ABO. There is the Rh
+/-. And, according to the Wikipedia article on "ABO blood group
system", there are about 20 subgroups of the A type, and the Hh
antigen system. And there are a whole bunch of them listed in
"Category:Blood antigen systems".
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
John Harshman
> Bood types say "no chimps".
>
> Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> blood types present in humans today?
Yes. That much is obvious and not in question. Now try a gene with more
than four alleles.
> If Adam and Eve were heterozygous
> for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Actually, all that's required is that they have any distribution of the
three alleles. Adam could, for example, have been AB, and Eve O, with
similar results.
> The
> Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
> If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there
> must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
> was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
> Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
> whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
> or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
> descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
> eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
> biblical model of human origins.
>
> http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
You seem to be confused about the difference between "doesn't disprove
X" and "disproves Y". You have, if anything, provided evidence that it
was possible for a gene with three (or four) alleles to have existed in
a created pair. This doesn't mean such a pair actually existed, or that
we aren't related to chimps.
Caranx latus
> On Dec 24, 8:38�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:32:55 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > >Bood types say "no chimps".
>
> > >Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> > >Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> > >blood types present in humans today? If Adam and Eve were heterozygous
> > >for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> > >allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> > >had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
> > >Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> > >for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> > >and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> > >ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
> > Why do you let the ICR tell these silly stories without acknowledging
> > that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Blood type is
> > only one little thing we inherit.
>
> Blood type is pretty major.
>
> We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
What is the matter with you? You can't do a 5-second Google search?
From <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2131087/pdf/853.pdf>
which is a paper from 1925, for crying out loud:
--- begin quote ---
The bloods of twenty-one anthropoid apes have been examined
serologicaIIy. It was found possible to assign each to one of the four
human blood groups.
The isoagglutinogens of the anthropoids were found to be identical
with those of human blood. These very same factors could not be
demonstrated in the blood of the lower monkeys.
In the blood of the fourteen chimpanzees examined only the
isoagglutinogen
A has been found, whereas both A and B were present in
the blood of the six orangs.
The significance of these findings for the knowledge of the human
blood groups is discussed.
--- end quote ---
<snip>
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
The point is the blood types are so much different
Even though there may be cases where the "types" match, chimp blood
cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
used in a transfusion.
Hardly a common ancestor if one were to ask me.
Caranx latus
Are you not aware that if you were to receive, say, a kidney from your
*mother* that you would likely need anti-rejection drugs? Obviously,
according to your standards, your mother is hardly your ancestor.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 24, 8:38�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:32:55 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >Bood types say "no chimps".
>>
>> >Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
>> >Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
>> >blood types present in humans today? If Adam and Eve were heterozygous
>> >for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
>> >allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
>> >had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
>> >Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
>> >for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
>> >and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
>> >ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>>
>> Why do you let the ICR tell these silly stories without acknowledging
>> that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Blood type is
>> only one little thing we inherit.
>>
>
>Blood type is pretty major.
Not nearly as significant as your handlers imply.
>We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
>
How genetically significant are the differences between human blood
types and the blood types of other apes?
What does Rh stand for in Rh-factor?
Free Lunch
<kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in talk.origins:
How foolish of me to accept his false claim at face value.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 24, 9:09�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
But that is not what you said when you first made your claim, you lying
fool.
>Hardly a common ancestor if one were to ask me.
Your ignorance, once again, is evidence that evolution-denying
creationism is a religious doctrine that cannot be supported by anything
but lies.
So, why do you think God needs to have you lie on His behalf? Why is He
too pathetic to stand up for Himself?
Mark Evans
False. Humans are apes. Why are you ashamed of hard working
ancestors who, according to your recent postings, must have perceived
a need to alter their DNA to become more intelligent? Clearly they
also saw a need to change blood types. Or, in the land of reality,
blood types are just the result of the many mutations that mark H.
Sap. as different from the other apes, along with size, hair
distribution and amount, brain size and other features.
Lloyd, if you can't be honest, accurate or reality based at least try
for consistency for a few days at a time. Watching you trip over your
onw posts is so sad.
Mark Evans
Caranx latus
General rule of thumb: any claim that [M]adape makes will be
demonstrably false.
There might be exceptions to that general rule, but they are few and
far between.
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:26:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
This is a second point using blood to show man and chimp are not
decendents
>
> >Hardly a common ancestor if one were to ask me.
>
> Your ignorance, once again, is evidence that evolution-denying
> creationism is a religious doctrine that cannot be supported by anything
> but lies.
>
> So, why do you think God needs to have you lie on His behalf? Why is He
> too pathetic to stand up for Himself?
Why is your faith so weak?
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
No, it's not a point at all.
>> >Hardly a common ancestor if one were to ask me.
>>
>> Your ignorance, once again, is evidence that evolution-denying
>> creationism is a religious doctrine that cannot be supported by anything
>> but lies.
>>
>> So, why do you think God needs to have you lie on His behalf? Why is He
>> too pathetic to stand up for Himself?
>
>Why is your faith so weak?
I have no need for faith in supernatural beings that appear to have been
completely invented by man thousands of years ago.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
The louder you guys squeel, the more I know I am right
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Those are peals of mocking laughter that you hear.
You are so hopelessly wrong that you have no idea how to find out how
wrong you are.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Well, bearing in mind that we *do* share blood groups with other
apes, will you now concede that you are wrong and accept that we are
related?
RF
Caranx latus
If that's what you get from these exchanges, then I wish you much joy
of it.
Oh, by the way, I read an English translation of Tablet VI of the
Enuma Elish. It requires a *really* creative interpretation of the
text in order to see anything that looks like a description of in
vitro fertilization. I would almost expect that hallucinogenics *have
to* be somehow involved in arriving at that interpretation.
Mike Dworetsky
From the introduction to the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_(non-human)
"Antigens from the human ABO blood group system are also found in apes such
as chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas."
They do not strictly have the identical blood groups as humans, but the
similarities are striking, and what might be expected for lineages that
diverged about 10-15 MYA..
What "Flood" are you bleating about in your ICR quote? There was no global
flood as described in Genesis.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Baron Bodissey
> On Dec 24, 10:24�am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 10:51�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:10:35 -0800 (PST), Caranx latus
> > > <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in talk.origins:
>
Christ, man. You were just shown where you were wrong in general and
in detail. It was rubbed in your face; how wrong do you have to be to
admit it? You are pathetic.
Baron Bodissey
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
� H. L. Mencken
Mike Dworetsky
Come on, you know you are caught in an eternally revolving creationist door.
Every time you post here, it is quickly shown that whatever you claim is
wrong (or doesn't mean what you claim it means). There have been very few
exceptions to this rule.
Besides, it's amusing to watch you bleat.
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:25:19 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
You can see the evidence for yourself. The blood would be rejected by
the human body. Even antibodies are different. Why do you persist with
the lie of evolution? Everything points to man being a seperate
creation.
>
> >> >Hardly a common ancestor if one were to ask me.
>
> >> Your ignorance, once again, is evidence that evolution-denying
> >> creationism is a religious doctrine that cannot be supported by anything
> >> but lies.
>
> >> So, why do you think God needs to have you lie on His behalf? Why is He
> >> too pathetic to stand up for Himself?
>
> >Why is your faith so weak?
>
> I have no need for faith in supernatural beings that appear to have been
> completely invented by man thousands of years ago.
Have you ever known a fabrication to last as long as the concept of
God?
The lies of history are all gone. But God remains the belief for
millions upon millions
Why do you run from this?
VoiceOfReason
<...>
> http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
Institute for Creationist Dishonesty? That says it all right there.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
compare an apple to an apple please.
If I were to take blood from anyone with the same blood type as mine,
there would be no rejection.
You can't say the same for chimps. All chimp blood would be rejected.
Bob T.
>
> The louder you guys squeel, the more I know I am right
Yep, the more people say you're wrong the more certain you are that
you're right. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of how
rational people think.
- Bob T.
Dan Listermann
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:3ea7d4cd-3e0d-45ed...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
millions of years, we can't be related to other great apes. I know, it is a
weird assumption he has to make, but he seems more than capable of doing
just that.
.
Dan Listermann
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:sLidnRPS9cOHPK7W...@bt.com...
> What "Flood" are you bleating about in your ICR quote? There was no
> global
> flood as described in Genesis.
>
demanding proof of a negative.
.
John Harshman
> The point is the blood types are so much different
>
> Even though there may be cases where the "types" match, chimp blood
> cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
> rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
> used in a transfusion.
But your post doesn't say anything about that. If that's your point, why
didn't you mention it?
> Hardly a common ancestor if one were to ask me.
Well, of course, chimps aren't our ancestors. If your point is that
humans are different from chimps, you're right. But how does being
different prevent them from having a common ancestor? I presume you are
somewhat different from both your parents. Are they therefore not your
parents? I presume you are somewhat different from your siblings (if you
have any). Are they therefore not your siblings?
You will note that the chimpanzee and gorilla blood antigens are more
similar to the human ones than to any other animals. Why should that be?
Dan Listermann
"Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
news:4529d241-3fc8-4baf...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 24, 8:40 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The louder you guys squeel, the more I know I am right
>
> Yep, the more people say you're wrong the more certain you are that
> you're right. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of how
> rational people think.
>
'
It is part of the conspiracy theorist mind set.
.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:d3b52a94-ec00-442a...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> If I were to take blood from anyone with the same blood type as mine,
> there would be no rejection.
>
> You can't say the same for chimps. All chimp blood would be rejected.
>
Maybe it is because they are different species? Can you go transfuse cat
and lion blood without problems? This is pretty fundamental and it whizzes
right by you.
.
Dan Listermann
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:KoydnTt5F8w...@giganews.com...
>
> You will note that the chimpanzee and gorilla blood antigens are more
> similar to the human ones than to any other animals. Why should that be?
>
Common design you know. Chimps are the Mark II design, while humans are the
later Mark VII. ( I refuse to use the 2.1 version crap)
.
All-Seeing-I
Common design , of course.
Hide quoted text -
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:40:15 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
We are so different from chimps and apes that their blood is not
compatable with ours.
The bible is clear. "Life is in the blood".
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
The Bible is full of folk saying that are inaccurate.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 24, 11:31�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
A very common one. An incompetent one even.
Remember that you are saying that your designer is copying evolution in
every single way, errors and all. As far as I can tell, you are claiming
that your designer did nothing at all original.
Do you have a point?
Free Lunch
<d...@listermann.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Of course there is evidence that the Flood described in Genesis did not
happen, but they ignore every bit of it because they worship themselves
too much to ever admit that they are wrong with their teachings.
TomS
<6e2f9d6c-fc1b-4d9c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, All-Seeing-I
stated..."[...snip...]
>> You will note that the chimpanzee and gorilla blood antigens are more
>> similar to the human ones than to any other animals. Why should that be?-
>
>Common design , of course.
Common design of course meaning that there was a common purpose in
the minds of the intelligent designers who designed humans, chimps,
and gorillas.
Are we supposed to be telling our kids that they were designed for
the same purposes as chimps and gorillas?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
TomS
<7a03b$4b33a7b2$4a53bf9f$28...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann stated..."
It might be that the materials that were available for the intelligent
designers stretched their abilities and imaginations to the limits.
Or maybe that the intelligent designers didn't care enough about the
project to put any extra work in to make those three species much
different.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
In 2003, a team of physicians at the Chinese Medical School of
Zhejiang University performed a groundbreaking proceedure using in-
vitro genetic enhancement, which matches the Sumerian experiment
almost point for point.
I guess the Chinese Medical School of Zhejiang University had it wrong
too?
Boikat
And you accuse others of "rationalizing"? Face it. You are as wrong
on this as you were when you answered "Trilobite" when challenged to
cite an example of a Cambrian mammal.
BTW, just to illustrate how gullible you are to swallow the ICR bilge,
what does the "rh" in "rh factor stand for? Do you even know?
>
> > Those are peals of mocking laughter that you hear.
>
> > You are so hopelessly wrong that you have no idea how to find out how
> > wrong you are.
>
> We are so different from chimps and apes that their blood is not
> compatable with ours.
Damn, you're ignorant.
>
> The bible is clear. "Life is in the blood".
1) The bible is not a science book.
2) It didn't require divine revelation to see that excessive blood
loss will lead to death, especially concidering the amount of blood
"The Chosen" spilled in the name of their god.
Boikat
Caranx latus
> On Dec 24, 10:47 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:40:15 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
<snip>
>>>>>>> Blood type is pretty major.
>>>>>>> We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
>>>>>> What is the matter with you? You can't do a 5-second Google search?
>>>>> >From <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2131087/pdf/853.pdf>
>>>>>> which is a paper from 1925, for crying out loud:
>>>>>> --- begin quote ---
>>>>>> The bloods of twenty-one anthropoid apes have been examined
>>>>>> serologicaIIy. It was found possible to assign each to one of the four
>>>>>> human blood groups.
>>>>>> The isoagglutinogens of the anthropoids were found to be identical
>>>>>> with those of human blood. These very same factors could not be
>>>>>> demonstrated in the blood of the lower monkeys.
>>>>>> In the blood of the fourteen chimpanzees examined only the
>>>>>> isoagglutinogen
>>>>>> A has been found, whereas both A and B were present in
>>>>>> the blood of the six orangs.
>>>>>> The significance of these findings for the knowledge of the human
>>>>>> blood groups is discussed.
>>>>> How foolish of me to accept his false claim at face value.
>>>> General rule of thumb: any claim that [M]adape makes will be
>>>> demonstrably false.
>>>> There might be exceptions to that general rule, but they are few and
>>>> far between.
>>> The louder you guys squeel, the more I know I am right
>> Those are peals of mocking laughter that you hear.
>>
>> You are so hopelessly wrong that you have no idea how to find out how
>> wrong you are.
>
> We are so different from chimps and apes that their blood is not
> compatable with ours.
So what? Your blood may not be compatible with that of other *people*.
Your claim was: "Blood type is pretty major. We do not share any with
chimps. Or apes."
The link that I provided stated: "The isoagglutinogens of the
anthropoids were found to be identical with those of human blood."
Your claim was, sadly and predictably, wrong. If you want to change your
claim now, that's up to you, but your original claim was simply wrong.
> The bible is clear. "Life is in the blood".
Do you think that plants are alive? Do you think that plants have blood?
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>"On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:42:21 -0800 (PST), in article
><6e2f9d6c-fc1b-4d9c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, All-Seeing-I
>stated..."
>>
>>On Dec 24, 11:31�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>[...snip...]
>>> You will note that the chimpanzee and gorilla blood antigens are more
>>> similar to the human ones than to any other animals. Why should that be?-
>>
>>Common design , of course.
>
>Common design of course meaning that there was a common purpose in
>the minds of the intelligent designers who designed humans, chimps,
>and gorillas.
>
>Are we supposed to be telling our kids that they were designed for
>the same purposes as chimps and gorillas?
Yes, the designer made the identical mistakes on all three.
What a sloppy, lazy designer ASI talks himself into.
Caranx latus
> On Dec 24, 10:47 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:40:15 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
<snip>
>>>>>>> Blood type is pretty major.
>>>>>>> We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
>>>>>> What is the matter with you? You can't do a 5-second Google search?
>>>>> >From <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2131087/pdf/853.pdf>
>>>>>> which is a paper from 1925, for crying out loud:
>>>>>> --- begin quote ---
>>>>>> The bloods of twenty-one anthropoid apes have been examined
>>>>>> serologicaIIy. It was found possible to assign each to one of the four
>>>>>> human blood groups.
>>>>>> The isoagglutinogens of the anthropoids were found to be identical
>>>>>> with those of human blood. These very same factors could not be
>>>>>> demonstrated in the blood of the lower monkeys.
>>>>>> In the blood of the fourteen chimpanzees examined only the
>>>>>> isoagglutinogen
>>>>>> A has been found, whereas both A and B were present in
>>>>>> the blood of the six orangs.
>>>>>> The significance of these findings for the knowledge of the human
>>>>>> blood groups is discussed.
>>>>> How foolish of me to accept his false claim at face value.
>>>> General rule of thumb: any claim that [M]adape makes will be
>>>> demonstrably false.
>>>> There might be exceptions to that general rule, but they are few and
>>>> far between.
>>> The louder you guys squeel, the more I know I am right
>> Those are peals of mocking laughter that you hear.
>>
>> You are so hopelessly wrong that you have no idea how to find out how
>> wrong you are.
>
> We are so different from chimps and apes that their blood is not
> compatable with ours.
So what? Your blood may not be compatible with that of other *people*.
Your claim was: "Blood type is pretty major. We do not share any with
chimps. Or apes."
The link that I provided stated: "The isoagglutinogens of the
anthropoids were found to be identical with those of human blood."
Your claim was, sadly and predictably, wrong. If you want to change your
claim now, that's up to you, but your original claim was simply wrong.
> The bible is clear. "Life is in the blood".
Do you think that plants are alive? Do you think that plants have blood?
Boikat
> On Dec 24, 9:09 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > Bood types say "no chimps".
>
> > > Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> > > Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> > > blood types present in humans today?
>
> > than four alleles.
>
> > > for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> > > allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> > > had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2.
>
> > three alleles. Adam could, for example, have been AB, and Eve O, with
> > similar results.
>
> > > Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> > > for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> > > and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> > > ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
> > > must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
> > > was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
> > > Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
> > > whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
> > > or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
> > > descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
> > > eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
> > > biblical model of human origins.
>
> > >http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
>
> > You seem to be confused about the difference between "doesn't disprove
> > X" and "disproves Y". You have, if anything, provided evidence that it
> > was possible for a gene with three (or four) alleles to have existed in
> > a created pair. This doesn't mean such a pair actually existed, or that
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Even though there may be cases where the "types" match, chimp blood
> cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
> rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
> used in a transfusion.
Gee. like somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million years since the
human/chimp lineage split doesn't matter?
>
> Hardly a common ancestor if one were to ask me.
News fucking flash for the imbicile (That's you, AS-(Idiot) : The
chimp is not the common ancestor. The chimp is not the common
ancestor. I repeated it because it was an imprtant point I did not
want you to miss.
Boikat
Wombat
> On Dec 24, 10:24�am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 10:51�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:10:35 -0800 (PST), Caranx latus
> > > <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > > >> On Dec 24, 8:38�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:32:55 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > > >> > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > > >> > >Bood types say "no chimps".
>
> > > >> > >Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> > > >> > >Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> > > >> > >for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> > > >> > >allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> > > >> > >Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> > > >> > >for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> > > >> > >and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> > > >> > >ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
> > > >> > that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Blood type is
> > > >> > only one little thing we inherit.
>
>
> > > >> We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
>
> > > >What is the matter with you? You can't do a 5-second Google search?
>
> > > >From <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2131087/pdf/853.pdf>
> > > >which is a paper from 1925, for crying out loud:
>
> > > >--- begin quote ---
> > > >The bloods of twenty-one anthropoid apes have been examined
> > > >serologicaIIy. It was found possible to assign each to one of the four
> > > >human blood groups.
>
> > > >The isoagglutinogens of the anthropoids were found to be identical
> > > >with those of human blood. These very same factors could not be
> > > >demonstrated in the blood of the lower monkeys.
>
> > > >In the blood of the fourteen chimpanzees examined only the
> > > >isoagglutinogen
> > > >A has been found, whereas both A and B were present in
> > > >the blood of the six orangs.
>
> > > >The significance of these findings for the knowledge of the human
> > > >blood groups is discussed.
>
> > > How foolish of me to accept his false claim at face value.
>
> > General rule of thumb: any claim that [M]adape makes will be
> > demonstrably false.
>
> > There might be exceptions to that general rule, but they are few and
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
In your (wet) dreams, Twatman.
Wombat
PS, the word is squeal, illiterate moron.
Boikat
> On Dec 24, 11:31�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > You will note that the chimpanzee and gorilla blood antigens are more
> > similar to the human ones than to any other animals. Why should that be?-
>
> Common design , of course.
>
Why bother with different blood types and rh factors at all? Blood is
blood. Blood serves one purpose, why muck it up with extra crap like
types and rh factors which only end up causing problems in some
cases? Damned incompetent designer, it look like.
Boikat
Dan Listermann
Same as house cats and lions, so what?
>
> The bible is clear. "Life is in the blood".
>
Another silly religobable statement.
.
Dan Listermann
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:271677455.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:41:25 -0500, in article
> <7a03b$4b33a7b2$4a53bf9f$28...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann stated..."
>>
>>
>>"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:KoydnTt5F8w...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> You will note that the chimpanzee and gorilla blood antigens are more
>>> similar to the human ones than to any other animals. Why should that be?
>>>
>>
>>Common design you know. Chimps are the Mark II design, while humans are
>>the
>>later Mark VII. ( I refuse to use the 2.1 version crap)
>
> It might be that the materials that were available for the intelligent
> designers stretched their abilities and imaginations to the limits.
>
> Or maybe that the intelligent designers didn't care enough about the
> project to put any extra work in to make those three species much
> different.
>
.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:5656c789-3da6-4daa...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Maybe you "interpretation" of what the Sumerians did is wacko.
.
Mark Evans
> On Dec 24, 9:38�am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 10:26�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 9:09 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > > > Bood types say "no chimps".
>
> > > > > Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> > > > > Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> > > > > blood types present in humans today?
>
> > > > than four alleles.
>
> > > > > for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> > > > > allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> > > > > had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2.
>
> > > > three alleles. Adam could, for example, have been AB, and Eve O, with
> > > > similar results.
>
> > > > > Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> > > > > for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> > > > > and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> > > > > ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
> > > > > must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
> > > > > was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
> > > > > Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
> > > > > whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
> > > > > or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
> > > > > descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
> > > > > eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
> > > > > biblical model of human origins.
>
> > > > >http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
>
> > > > You seem to be confused about the difference between "doesn't disprove
> > > > X" and "disproves Y". You have, if anything, provided evidence that it
> > > > was possible for a gene with three (or four) alleles to have existed in
> > > > a created pair. This doesn't mean such a pair actually existed, or that
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > Even though there may be cases where the "types" match, chimp blood
> > > cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
> > > rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
> > > used in a transfusion.
>
>
> > *mother* that you would likely need anti-rejection drugs? Obviously,
> > according to your standards, your mother is hardly your ancestor.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> If I were to take blood from anyone with the same blood type as mine,
> there would be no rejection.
>
> You can't say the same for chimps. All chimp blood would be rejected.
Sooo... People with a different blood group woulkd be rejected
therefore they are chimps? And doubtless float and shoukd be burned
like ducks. or witches.
Mark Evans
Caranx latus
> On Dec 24, 9:38 am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 10:26 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>> The point is the blood types are so much different
>>> Even though there may be cases where the "types" match, chimp blood
>>> cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
>>> rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
>>> used in a transfusion.
>>> Hardly a common ancestor if one were to ask me.
>> Are you not aware that if you were to receive, say, a kidney from your
>> *mother* that you would likely need anti-rejection drugs? Obviously,
>> according to your standards, your mother is hardly your ancestor.
>
> compare an apple to an apple please.
>
> If I were to take blood from anyone with the same blood type as mine,
> there would be no rejection.
And if you were to accept blood from somone with a different blood type,
it could be rejected. Again, according to your standards, that person
could not be an ancestor of yours. Do you agree with that or not?
> You can't say the same for chimps. All chimp blood would be rejected.
You seem to be under the impression that blood rejection is exclusively
because of its type.
Caranx latus
All-seeing-I
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:43:57 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
Why would the bible lie?
You never are able to answer that
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
WTF do plants have to do with the fact that blood clearly shows a
major difference between us and the chimps?
John Harshman
Why should the African apes have a common design of blood antigens with
humans, rather than dogs or pigs?
All-seeing-I
> "TomS" <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:271677455.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > "On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:41:25 -0500, in article
> > <7a03b$4b33a7b2$4a53bf9f$28...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann stated..."
>
> >>news:KoydnTt5F8w...@giganews.com...
>
> >>> You will note that the chimpanzee and gorilla blood antigens are more
> >>> similar to the human ones than to any other animals. Why should that be?
>
> >>Common design you know. �Chimps are the Mark II design, while humans are
> >>the
> >>later Mark VII. �( I refuse to use the 2.1 version crap)
>
> > It might be that the materials that were available for the intelligent
> > designers stretched their abilities and imaginations to the limits.
>
> > Or maybe that the intelligent designers didn't care enough about the
> > project to put any extra work in to make those three species much
> > different.
>
> It was just continuing upgrades.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's one way to look at it
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
They tell stories. Ahistorical stories are not the same things as lies.
>You never are able to answer that
I've answered this question before. The Bible is demonstrated to contain
errors. That does not mean that the storytellers were telling lies, they
were telling stories. They had no reason to think that their stories
would be taken as historical claims when they started telling the
stories.
The question today is why anyone would assert that these stories are
accurate history or science. No one who worships the Bible ever explains
that.
Caranx latus
> On Dec 24, 11:05 am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 11:40 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Oh, by the way, I read an English translation of Tablet VI of the
>> Enuma Elish. It requires a *really* creative interpretation of the
>> text in order to see anything that looks like a description of in
>> vitro fertilization. I would almost expect that hallucinogenics *have
>> to* be somehow involved in arriving at that interpretation.
>
> In 2003, a team of physicians at the Chinese Medical School of
> Zhejiang University performed a groundbreaking proceedure using in-
> vitro genetic enhancement, which matches the Sumerian experiment
> almost point for point.
Did they really? Here's what the Enuma Elish says:
--- begin quote ---
"It was Kingu who contrived the uprising,
And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle."
They bound him, holding him before Ea.
They imposed on him his punishment and severed his blood vessels.
Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.
--- end quote ---
That's all that I can find in the Enuma Elish regarding the "Sumerian
experiment". If I'm missing something, point it out to me, please.
Presumably the Chinese didn't sever Kingu's arteries and make mankind
from Kingu's blood, 'cause he was already dead. They must created
mankind from one of the other gods. Yes?
As I said before, it requires a *really* creative interpretation to find
an in vitro fertilization anywhere in that text. I suspect that whoever
you got that fantasy from made it up from whole cloth.
<snip>
Caranx latus
You neglected to comment on the above.
> > > The bible is clear. "Life is in the blood".
>
> > Do you think that plants are alive? Do you think that plants have blood?
>
> WTF do plants have to do with the fact that blood clearly shows a
> major difference between us and the chimps?
I apologize. I guess I didn't realize that your Bible quote was a non
sequitur. Don't let this distract you further.
Caranx latus
> Zhejiang University performed a groundbreaking proceedure using in-
> vitro genetic enhancement, which matches the Sumerian experiment
> almost point for point.
Did they really? Here's what the Enuma Elish says:
TomS
<heKdnccqxOf...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."[...snip...]
>>> You will note that the chimpanzee and gorilla blood antigens are more
>>> similar to the human ones than to any other animals. Why should that be?-
>>
>> Common design , of course.
>
>Why should the African apes have a common design of blood antigens with
>humans, rather than dogs or pigs?
>
Let's just recognize that the creationists have an answer: "Because".
They complain that evolutionary biology can't answer this or that.
(Whether "this" or "that" actually is unanswered, that's a minor
irrelevancy for the creationist.)
But when it comes to creationism, "because" satisfies them.
And no amount of evidence, logic, rhetoric, or embarrassment will
ever get through to them.
Reddfrogg
Actually, blood typing shows a major similiarity between humans and
other apes. As has been pointed out before, chimps do have some of
the same blood types as humans.
DJT
TomS
<fe70a5b6-eaa2-4147...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I stated..."
Did you consider the possibility that the statement about plants was
a response to the immediately preceding statement "Life is in the
blood"?
I realize that that would require that you recognize the way that
rational conversation proceeds. It doesn't just jump around at
random, with people makings statements that have no relevance to
the context.
And it would require that you would have some interest in engaging
in conversation.
Reddfrogg
> On Dec 24, 9:09 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > Bood types say "no chimps".
>
> > > Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> > > Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> > > blood types present in humans today?
>
> > than four alleles.
>
> > > for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> > > allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> > > had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2.
>
> > three alleles. Adam could, for example, have been AB, and Eve O, with
> > similar results.
>
> > > Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> > > for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> > > and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> > > ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
> > > must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
> > > was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
> > > Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
> > > whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
> > > or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
> > > descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
> > > eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
> > > biblical model of human origins.
>
> > >http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
>
> > You seem to be confused about the difference between "doesn't disprove
> > X" and "disproves Y". You have, if anything, provided evidence that it
> > was possible for a gene with three (or four) alleles to have existed in
> > a created pair. This doesn't mean such a pair actually existed, or that
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
Actually, they aren't very different. Human blood types and factors
are found in many primates, including chimps.
See:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/705703m8360g3600/
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=155933
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC224394/
>
> Even though there may be cases where the "types" match, chimp blood
> cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
> rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
> used in a transfusion.
No, not really. According to Dr. Pedro Ynterian, founder of the Great
Ape Project:
" Human blood and Chimpanzee blood, with compatible blood groups, can
be exchanged through transfusion. Neither our nor the chimps blood can
be exchanged with any other species. We are closer genetically to a
chimp than a mouse is to a rat."
http://www.greatapeproject.org/en-US/oprojetogap/Missao
>
> Hardly a common ancestor if one were to ask me.
No one asked you, and chimps are not our common ancestor, but a close
cousin.
DJT
Cory Albrecht
> On Dec 24, 8:38 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:32:55 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> Bood types say "no chimps".
>>
>>> Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
>>> Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
>>> for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
>>> allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
>>> Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
>>> for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
>>> and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
>>> ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>>
>> that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Blood type is
>> only one little thing we inherit.
>>
>
>
> We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
Actually, we do. Chimpanzees share blood group types A & O from that
series with us, as well as the Rh, Hr and MN typing, all being homologous.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC224394/> and look at those
links on the side.
Yet another example of how ignorant you are of science.
>
>
>
>>> If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there
>>> must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
>>> was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
>>> Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
>>> whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
>>> or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
>>> descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
>>> eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
>>> biblical model of human origins.
>>
>>> http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
>>
>> The biblical model of human origins was proven false years ago. The only
>> way to believe what they are selling is to delude yourself. The ICR
>> knows that it is lying to you.
>
>
Reddfrogg
> On Dec 24, 9:38�am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 10:26�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 9:09 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> > > > > Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> > > > > Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> > > > > blood types present in humans today?
>
> > > > than four alleles.
>
> > > > > for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> > > > > allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> > > > > had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2.
>
> > > > three alleles. Adam could, for example, have been AB, and Eve O, with
> > > > similar results.
>
> > > > > Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> > > > > for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> > > > > and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> > > > > ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
> > > > > must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
> > > > > was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
> > > > > Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
> > > > > whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
> > > > > or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
> > > > > descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
> > > > > eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
> > > > > biblical model of human origins.
>
> > > > >http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
>
> > > > X" and "disproves Y". You have, if anything, provided evidence that it
> > > > was possible for a gene with three (or four) alleles to have existed in
> > > > a created pair. This doesn't mean such a pair actually existed, or that
> > > > we aren't related to chimps.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > The point is the blood types are so much different
>
> > > cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
> > > rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
> > > used in a transfusion.
>
>
> > *mother* that you would likely need anti-rejection drugs? Obviously,
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> If I were to take blood from anyone with the same blood type as mine,
> there would be no rejection.
>
No, it wouldn't . Chimp blood and human blood of the same type would
not be rejected.
DJT
Dan Listermann
force a false dichotomy?
.
Dan Listermann
Major enough to be totally unrelated? Nonsense and silliness.
.
Dan Listermann
"Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:hh0deu$jnf$1...@aioe.org...
.
Dan Listermann
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q0e7j5djpn7qauuva...@4ax.com...
He wants you to admit that if something does not conform exactly to reality,
it is a lie. Obviously he needs to bone up on the fallacy of the false
dichotomy.
.
Dan Listermann
Well I am willing to listen to what evidence you might have to support it
beyond the usual snipes at evolution.
Will we see a second reply, or did I ask a bit too much?
.
Free Lunch
<d...@listermann.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:9c0f35c9-efad-455d...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 24, 11:48 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:43:57 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Dec 24, 10:47 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:40:15 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>> >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>
>>> >> >On Dec 24, 10:24 am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> >> >> On Dec 24, 10:51 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:10:35 -0800 (PST), Caranx latus
>>> >> >> > <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in talk.origins:
...
No, I said that intentionally to take intent away from the storyteller.
Dan Listermann
"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ssrc07x...@fenris.cjb.net...
> All-Seeing-I wrote, on 09-12-24 09:45 AM:
>>
>> We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
>
> Actually, we do. Chimpanzees share blood group types A & O from that
> series with us, as well as the Rh, Hr and MN typing, all being homologous.
>
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC224394/> and look at those
> links on the side.
>
> Yet another example of how ignorant you are of science.
>
You see, a transfusion between you and a chimp would be a problem, therefore
we can't have shared any common ancestry. It is as simple as that in his
mind. Stop trying to confuse him with facts, he doesn't seem to like it.
.
Ron O
>
> > Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> > Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> > blood types present in humans today?
>
> than four alleles.
>
> > for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> > allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> > had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2.
>
> three alleles. Adam could, for example, have been AB, and Eve O, with
> similar results.
This isn't really a possiblity because Eve was a clone made from Adams
rib, with likely only the X chromosome doubled and the Y chromosome
removed. You can read it in the ancient texts. This means that
humans were created with only two alleles, at most, for each gene.
The AIG is claiming that all cat kind evolved after the flood
(including extinct saber toothed relatives that evolved during the
cold period after the flood and the house tabby) from the one cat kind
on the ark. All canids evolved from one dog kind that was on the ark
including foxes that are twice the genetic distance from wolves as
chimps are from humans. What are a few blood group alleles compared
to that massive amount of evolution in just a couple thousand years?
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
Ye Old One
>Bood types say "no chimps".
>
>Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
>Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
>blood types present in humans today? If Adam and Eve were heterozygous
>for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
>allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
>had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
>Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
>for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
>and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
>ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
>If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there
>must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
>was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
>Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
>whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
>or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
>descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
>eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
>biblical model of human origins.
>
>http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
If the bible was correct then Eve was a clone of Adam. She was 100%
male with exactly the same DNA.
There was no Noah so there was no flood.
ICR are, like you, totally nuts.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Mark Evans
SNIP
>
> Why would the bible lie?
>
> You never are able to answer that
>
answered it has been answered many times but you choose not to
remember. The bible lies, distorts, errs and generally is not
reliable. Or do you really believe in talking serpents, virgin
births, burning bushes and all that other fantasy in it?
Mark Evans
All-seeing-I
It is not a non sequitur, it is an explaination
All-seeing-I
Why would the bible be a lie?
The miracles of Jesus and others events were done many times in front
of thousands of witnesses for three years.
It is history.
Genesis 10:25 speaks of one Peleg whose name means division. The text
then explains that he was so named because in his days the earth was
divided. It is now commonly believed that all continents of the earth
were once combined into a single continent.
It is science.
Psalms 8:4-8 likely reveal the existence of systematic ocean
currents:
"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that
thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the
angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to
have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things
under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth
through the paths of the seas."
Paths of the sea.
You just want to lie about the Bible --Why. Do you just hate God?
All-seeing-I
> "On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:40:27 -0800 (PST), in article
It is not an apple to apple comparison to the same kind of life.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2- Hide quoted text -
All-seeing-I
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:42:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 24, 11:31�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> >> >>> Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> >> >>> Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> >> >>> blood types present in humans today?
> >> >> than four alleles.
>
> >> >>> for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> >> >>> allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> >> >>> had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2.
> >> >> three alleles. Adam could, for example, have been AB, and Eve O, with
> >> >> similar results.
>
> >> >>> Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> >> >>> for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> >> >>> and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> >> >>> ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
> >> >>> must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
> >> >>> was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
> >> >>> Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
> >> >>> whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
> >> >>> or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
> >> >>> descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
> >> >>> eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
> >> >>> biblical model of human origins.
> >> >>>http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
> >> >> X" and "disproves Y". You have, if anything, provided evidence that it
> >> >> was possible for a gene with three (or four) alleles to have existed in
> >> >> a created pair. This doesn't mean such a pair actually existed, or that
> >> >> we aren't related to chimps.
>
> >> > Even though there may be cases where the "types" match, chimp blood
> >> > cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
> >> > rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
> >> > used in a transfusion.
>
> >> didn't you mention it?
>
>
> >> humans are different from chimps, you're right. But how does being
> >> different prevent them from having a common ancestor? I presume you are
> >> somewhat different from both your parents. Are they therefore not your
> >> parents? I presume you are somewhat different from your siblings (if you
> >> have any). Are they therefore not your siblings?
>
>
> >Common design , of course.
>
>
> Remember that you are saying that your designer is copying evolution in
> every single way, errors and all. As far as I can tell, you are claiming
> that your designer did nothing at all original.
>
> Do you have a point?
Using common design ideas is not copying evolution in every way. He
created each original kind and they filled the earth after their own
kind.
the blood shows this to be true and the "life" of each creature is in
the blood.
All-seeing-I
Why do you think those things did not happen? Because they did not
happen to you? It would seem if those things happened a hundred years
ago you would still doubt.
The world does not center around you . Sorry.
>
> Mark Evans
Ye Old One
>On Dec 24, 10:24�am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 10:51�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:10:35 -0800 (PST), Caranx latus
>> > <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> > >On Dec 24, 9:45�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Dec 24, 8:38�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:32:55 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> > >> > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> > >> > >Bood types say "no chimps".
>>
>> > >> > >Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
>> > >> > >Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
>> > >> > >blood types present in humans today? If Adam and Eve were heterozygous
>> > >> > >for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
>> > >> > >allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
>> > >> > >had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
>> > >> > >Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
>> > >> > >for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
>> > >> > >and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
>> > >> > >ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>>
>> > >> > Why do you let the ICR tell these silly stories without acknowledging
>> > >> > that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Blood type is
>> > >> > only one little thing we inherit.
>>
>> > >> Blood type is pretty major.
>>
>> > >> We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
>>
>> > >What is the matter with you? You can't do a 5-second Google search?
>>
>> > >From <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2131087/pdf/853.pdf>
>> > >which is a paper from 1925, for crying out loud:
>>
>> > >--- begin quote ---
>> > >The bloods of twenty-one anthropoid apes have been examined
>> > >serologicaIIy. It was found possible to assign each to one of the four
>> > >human blood groups.
>>
>> > >The isoagglutinogens of the anthropoids were found to be identical
>> > >with those of human blood. These very same factors could not be
>> > >demonstrated in the blood of the lower monkeys.
>>
>> > >In the blood of the fourteen chimpanzees examined only the
>> > >isoagglutinogen
>> > >A has been found, whereas both A and B were present in
>> > >the blood of the six orangs.
>>
>> > >The significance of these findings for the knowledge of the human
>> > >blood groups is discussed.
>>
>> > How foolish of me to accept his false claim at face value.
>>
>> General rule of thumb: any claim that [M]adape makes will be
>> demonstrably false.
>>
>> There might be exceptions to that general rule, but they are few and
>> far between.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>The louder you guys squeel, the more I know I am right
It has never happened before, and I really doubt it will ever happen
in the future.
Start with
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/02/genetics-of-abo-blood-types.html
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/02/abo-blood-types.html
Reddfrogg
> On Dec 24, 1:23 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > I realize that that would require that you recognize the way that
> > rational conversation proceeds. It doesn't just jump around at
> > random, with people makings statements that have no relevance to
> > the context.
>
> > And it would require that you would have some interest in engaging
> > in conversation.
>
> It is not an apple to apple comparison to the same kind of life.
There is only one "kind" of life. Would you like to address the
evidence that your original claim, ie that chimp blood is
fundamentally different from human blood is entirely wrong?
DJT
Reddfrogg
How do you account for the fact that it's wrong in a biological
sense? Most living things dont' have anything that could be called
"blood".
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Dec 24, 10:36�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:25:19 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > >On Dec 24, 9:53�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:26:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > >> >On Dec 24, 9:09�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> >> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> > >> >> > Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
> > >> >> > Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
> > >> >> > blood types present in humans today?
>
> > >> >> than four alleles.
>
> > >> >> > for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
> > >> >> > allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
> > >> >> > had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2.
>
> > >> >> three alleles. Adam could, for example, have been AB, and Eve O, with
> > >> >> similar results.
>
> > >> >> > Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
> > >> >> > for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
> > >> >> > and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
> > >> >> > ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>
> > >> >> > must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race
> > >> >> > was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe.
> > >> >> > Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or
> > >> >> > whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before
> > >> >> > or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
> > >> >> > descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that
> > >> >> > eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the
> > >> >> > biblical model of human origins.
>
> > >> >> >http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
>
> > >> >> You seem to be confused about the difference between "doesn't disprove
> > >> >> X" and "disproves Y". You have, if anything, provided evidence that it
> > >> >> was possible for a gene with three (or four) alleles to have existed in
> > >> >> a created pair. This doesn't mean such a pair actually existed, or that
>
> > >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > >> >Even though there may be cases where the "types" match, chimp blood
> > >> >cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
> > >> >rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
> > >> >used in a transfusion.
>
> > >> fool.
>
> > >This is a second point using blood to show man and chimp are not
> > >decendents
>
> > No, it's not a point at all.
>
> You can see the evidence for yourself. The blood would be rejected by
> the human body.
Actually, it would not.
> Even antibodies are different.
No, they aren't.
> Why do you persist with
> the lie of evolution? Everything points to man being a seperate
> creation.
Then why do all your claims against evolution blow up, like this one
did?
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Dec 24, 9:53 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > >Even though there may be cases where the "types" match, chimp blood
> > >cells are sufficiently different that it would require lots of anti-
> > >rejection drugs to keep them from being attacked should their blood be
> > >used in a transfusion.
>
> > But that is not what you said when you first made your claim, you lying
> > fool.
>
> This is a second point using blood to show man and chimp are not
> decendents
The "second point" is entirely wrong. One wouldn't need anti-
rejection drugs for a chimp to human blood transfusion. Also,
humans are not the descendants of chimps, and chimps are not the
descendants of humans. Both are decendants of a common ancestor.
DJT
TomS
<59067$4b33c755$4a53bf9f$12...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann stated..."
Facts? I haven't seen any evidence that he even notices such things.
All-seeing-I
Semantics.
Life is in the blood and two different kinds of life will not be able
to share blood.
TomS
<66918f67-c27f-4e53...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Not all valid comparisons are apple to apple.
But I notice that you continue to ignore what people are saying.
All-seeing-I
We were not talking about most living things and neither was the
bible.
All-seeing-I
> "On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:25:24 -0800 (PST), in article
You think comparing human to plants is an equal comparison?
>
> But I notice that you continue to ignore what people are saying.
Because I will not let their post distract me?
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2- Hide quoted text -
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 24, 11:48�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:43:57 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 24, 10:47�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:40:15 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 24, 10:24�am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> On Dec 24, 10:51�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:10:35 -0800 (PST), Caranx latus
>> >> >> > <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >> >> > >On Dec 24, 9:45�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> On Dec 24, 8:38�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > >> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:32:55 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> >> >> > >> > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >> >> > >> > >Bood types say "no chimps".
>>
>> >> >> > >> > >Is it possible for the two people of the Creation account (Adam and
>> >> >> > >> > >Eve) or the eight people on Noah's Ark to give rise to all of the ABO
>> >> >> > >> > >blood types present in humans today? If Adam and Eve were heterozygous
>> >> >> > >> > >for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
>> >> >> > >> > >allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that
>> >> >> > >> > >had any of the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
>> >> >> > >> > >Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be
>> >> >> > >> > >for a given couple's children. From the number of children that Adam
>> >> >> > >> > >and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the
>> >> >> > >> > >ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
>>
>> >> >> > >> > Why do you let the ICR tell these silly stories without acknowledging
>> >> >> > >> > that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Blood type is
>> >> >> > >> > only one little thing we inherit.
>>
>> >> >> > >> Blood type is pretty major.
>>
>> >> >> > >> We do not share any with chimps. Or apes.
>>
>> >> >> > >What is the matter with you? You can't do a 5-second Google search?
>>
>> >> >> > >From <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2131087/pdf/853.pdf>
>> >> >> > >which is a paper from 1925, for crying out loud:
>>
>> >> >> > >--- begin quote ---
>> >> >> > >The bloods of twenty-one anthropoid apes have been examined
>> >> >> > >serologicaIIy. It was found possible to assign each to one of the four
>> >> >> > >human blood groups.
>>
>> >> >> > >The isoagglutinogens of the anthropoids were found to be identical
>> >> >> > >with those of human blood. These very same factors could not be
>> >> >> > >demonstrated in the blood of the lower monkeys.
>>
>> >> >> > >In the blood of the fourteen chimpanzees examined only the
>> >> >> > >isoagglutinogen
>> >> >> > >A has been found, whereas both A and B were present in
>> >> >> > >the blood of the six orangs.
>>
>> >> >> > >The significance of these findings for the knowledge of the human
>> >> >> > >blood groups is discussed.
>>
>> >> >> > How foolish of me to accept his false claim at face value.
>>
>> >> >> General rule of thumb: any claim that [M]adape makes will be
>> >> >> demonstrably false.
>>
>> >> >> There might be exceptions to that general rule, but they are few and
>> >> >> far between.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >The louder you guys squeel, the more I know I am right
>>
>> >> Those are peals of mocking laughter that you hear.
>>
>> >> You are so hopelessly wrong that you have no idea how to find out how
>> >> wrong you are.
>>
>> >We are so different from chimps and apes that their blood is not
>> >compatable with ours.
>>
>> >The bible is clear. "Life is in the blood".
>>
>> The Bible is full of folk saying that are inaccurate.
>
>Why would the bible lie?
>
>You never are able to answer that
>
It has been answered numerous times.
You have a learning disability.
Metaphors and allegorical stories are not lies.
Bronze age goatherds were, however, quite ignorant. So they made
stuff up.
Reddfrogg
You are dismissing the fact that the vast majority of living things
don't have blood as a matter of semantics? How do you justify such
a thing?
>
> Life is in the blood and two different kinds of life will not be able
> to share blood.-
As I've pointed out before, there is only one "kind" of life.
Humans and chimps can share blood, and blood products, as I've already
shown. Are you going to admit you were wrong?
DJT
Reddfrogg
Are you really trying to say that the Bible didn't mean "most living
things" when it referred to "life"? Seriously? Is that your
contention?
Also ,are you going to address the fact that humans and chimps can
share blood and blood products without anti-rejection drugs?
DJT
Reddfrogg
Plants are eukaryotes, which means they are the same "kind" of life.
All life is the same "kind".
>
>
>
> > But I notice that you continue to ignore what people are saying.
>
> Because I will not let their post distract me?
Because you won't admit you are sadly mistaken.
DJT
Caranx latus
Indeed. Not only do most living things not have blood, but life is not
restricted to the blood. 'Life is in the *cells*' would be far more
accurate.
> Life is in the blood and two different kinds of life will not be able
> to share blood.
That you think that "life is in the blood" supports the idea that
blood can't be shared by different life forms shows the kind of really
creative interpretations that you put on things. No wonder you like to
think the Enuma Elish contains a description of in vitro
fertilization.
Caranx latus
Indeed. Not only do most living things not have blood, but life is not
restricted to the blood. 'Life is in the *cells*' would be far more
accurate.
> Life is in the blood and two different kinds of life will not be able
> to share blood.
That you think that "life is in the blood" supports the idea that blood
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
The ENTIRE book.. huh?
Damn you are dumb.