Size Matters - a quick biology lesson

Slicer has posted before on his fascination with the very big and the very small in the context of physics, and looks forward with excited anticipation to an announcement from CERN later today. However, sometimes it's easier to understand biology. Slicer also likes dogs. Here's some biology demonstrated by 2 cute doggies - big and small:

 

Comments

[Shanemuk]

Have a look for Elaine Ostrander's research on doggie genomics - these cute pooches are very closely related to each other, and to wolves, of course. The difference in size between these doggies is principally down to *one* genomic region - the region around IGF1. Interestingly this region is also involved in human growth (not surprisingly of course, since we share a common ancestor with dogs, cats, fish, archaea ;-), and some of the growth disorders that Shanemuk encounters in clinic are associated with this region too.

[The Slicer]

No surprises there for me, Shane. As you know I have no diffs with common ancestry. Never understood why some theists were/are more offended to think of being made from common genetic precursors than from dirt...

[Shanemuk]

I think the main problem some theists have is recognising that a/ we are animals, and b/ a process of the same impersonal forces that created all the other animals. I read a very strange (read: completely barking crazy) book called "Should Christians Embrace Evolution", contributed to and edited by my old Genetics prof, Norman Nevin. There is a *lot* of paranoia and dishonesty in its pages (heck, it even has a chapter by Steve Fuller), but one of the main themes was that you can't accept Christianity without accepting that Adam and Eve were *really* the first people on Earth, about 6-10kYA. Now I know that virtually *no* theists in biology take that position; we know that humans have never bottlenecked down to 2 individuals (or 5, genetically, if we include the myth of the Flood) at *any* point since we branched off from the other Great Apes. That's something that these particular theists need to deal with, and to be honest, although Dennis Alexander makes a feeble effort, and John Lennox & Alister McGrath also accept the mythicality of Genesis, there are really no theistic "big hitters" taking the creationists on. The notable exception is, of course, Ken Miller, for whom I have a great deal of respect.

[The Slicer]

Slicer isn't about to defend the position of those with whom he differs on evolution (theist or otherwise), but he figures he's got his flaws too. He would be INTERESTED to hear a discussion between Norman Nevin and Francis Collins on this, but it may actually be a bit of an indulgence which he, and other Christians are not called to have as a priority. Whilst the Church is called to be a witness to truth, that doesn't preclude some folk getting things wrong (heck we've even been known to DO wrong things, not just think them!).... and, as I pointed out in the subsequent post, the Church's primary vocation is not to intellectual advancement, or to 'one-upmanship'.... if it was, do you think a fisherman, a bunch of (likely illiterate) shepherds, and (in their society and culture) a couple of lowly women would have been chosen to be primary witnesses/testifiers to its message? The Kingdom the Church is tasked with helping bring in is a topsy-turvy one, where the weak are lifted up, and the proud humbled (preferably willingly!). It's one based on love rather than on demonstrating "I'm right and you're wrong." It's one where (with Pythonesque imagery) we're supposed to remove the log from our own eye first.

.... but this particular post wasn't supposed to be making any kind of point - it was just supposed to be a bit of fun.... it's a 'dog eat dog' world out there....

[Shanemuk]

I've debated Norman in the past; I don't think you would find a Collins/Nevin encounter as interesting as you think. You're saying this "Kingdom" Thingy can tolerate a certain amount of frank error? Funny, but creationists like Norman don't think so. Anyway, that's a side issue; nice doggies :-)

[The Slicer]

The Kingdom thing is still a journey (a pilgrim's progress, if you like) so yes, there will be error in both thought and practice 'til the journey is complete. That's the WHOLE POINT of the phrase "through a glass darkly," and the reason we're supposed to retain some humility...

[Shanemuk]

Yeah, Slicer and the Muslims and the Mormons and the Hindus etc are all on this little pilgrim's progress, and they are all sure that they are right, while bagging faux humility in claiming to see through a glass darkly. But the truth is that none of these plucky little adventurers have any evidence to back up their positions, much less the moral imprecations they hurl at those of us who disagree. Shanemuk on the other hand is an atheist. He does not believe in gods, pixies and demons because there is no evidence that these beasties exist or have any interaction with the real world that we inhabit. If Slicer wishes to drop the error, Slicer would do well to be a lot more careful about what he regards as true. Let's start with the error that is Pauline theology, and extend that to the error of theism in general, the "realism" of the myths of Genesis and the resurrection of the man Jesus the Nazarene. These are errors. Interesting errors, but errors nonetheless.

[The Slicer]

Thanks for your opinion, Shanemuk. You have single-handedly bolstered Slicer's comment count quite significantly, between comments on this post and others.

Whilst you obviously feel it's fair game to judge those of multiple faith positions of 'faux humility,' it seems that you feel under no aspiration/obligation to demonstrate any humility yourself. Slicer knows some atheists who are capable of humility too, and he wouldn't presume to label it false, fake, or 'faux.' Christian faith begins (and continues) with an acknowledgement that we are not great.

Keeping on the doggie theme, Slicer hears lots of barking... but not much bite :-D
Merry Christmas.

[Shanemuk]

You're welcome, but unfortunately all @Shanemuk hears coming from the "faith position" is whining and yelping like the proverbial scalded pup. Shanemuk does not claim humility, certainly not of the faux variety espoused by some. For entertainment purposes, Shanemuk suggests Slicer have a wee listen to the Reasonable Doubts podcast: http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2011/12/12/rd-extra-interview-with-jeremiah-banister/