[Because the rights of man being derived from the Creator where considered “self evident”.]

Followed by:

“Furthermore, you blithely ignored the reality that belief in a creator God is not predictive of whether someone believes that all other people have rights.”

[The source of human rights must be defined if you are going to determine what power government has in changing or eliminating them.]

Obviously, you replied to the argument of the moment without bothering to consider whether you might be undercutting yourself later on (in the very same post, I might add). “God’s not mentioned in the constitution” –> They didn’t need to, the rights are self evident. But then later, “belief in a creator God is not predictive of whether someone believes in rights”–>the source of rights must be defined if your are going to determine what power government has.

Cerebral inertia. Remarkable.

“ksagnostic”
[rfl]

” The idea that other humans have rights comes from the realization that others should have the same rights that you want for yourself or yours.”

[Where is the "Golden Rule" referenced in the constitution as the source of human rights"]

“Yes, Jefferson did reference a creator (not really the Biblical God, by the way) in the Declaration. However, the lack of reference to God in the Constitution was intentional.”

[Because the rights of man being derived from the Creator where considered "self evident".]

“The government was based on a representational democratic republic, and the Bill of Rights was added to outline the rights of citizens as individuals and as groups.”

[The Bill of Rights were never intended to list ALL the rights that American citizens. Trying to do so would limit the scope of rights protected. This explains the 9th amendment.]

“That is a legal basis for rights, and agreement to that legal basis is in no way dependent on the assumption of a creator.”

[Where is the legal basis for the "Golden Rule" writting in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any document authored by at least one of the men responsible for producing both of those founding documents to this nation?]

“Furthermore, you blithely ignored the reality that belief in a creator God is not predictive of whether someone believes that all other people have rights.”

[The source of human rights must be defined if you are going to determine what power government has in changing or eliminating them.]

“After all, belief in a creator god has also been the basis of the divine right of kings,”

[Belief that all men are created equal and have equal rights is NOT consistent with divine right of Kings philosopy. This is exactly why the Declaration was written as it was.]

“or intolerant theocracies based on Sharia or “Biblical” law ”

[intolerant theocracies are lead by intolerent men who are not protecting the human rights given to all men by the Creator. No government, King, or human institution, can take these rights away.]

Furthermore, lack of belief in a creator god is not predictive of whether someone does not believe in the concepts of rights.

[True, anybody can make up whatever basis rights they want to, regardless of whether or not that basis is in the Constitution or any other document. You have proven as such in your last post on this topic].

Interesting article, though.

“The number of shared retrovirusus from the human genome in the SAME location increase according to the sequence of new world monkeys, old world monkeys, apes, and African apes.”

Note in the graph three remnants shared only between humans.

“from the article above and other by the same author

“Re: Retrovirus
…there is no evidence it infected ancestors of modern-day humans, according to research by genome scientists.

“The study’s lead authors are Zhaoshi Jiang, a Ph.D. student in Eichler’s lab at the UW, and Chris Yohn, a technician at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.”

1) I wasn’t talking about “it” as in a single retrovirus, I was talking about multiple, multiple and different retroviral remnants. Go back and look at my links. Here are a couple more plus the talk origins link that bears repeating(stupid word press):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10468595?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15890939?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10773466?dopt=Abstract

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

On the last link, pay special attention to the graph on Figure 4.4.1. The number of shared retrovirusus in the SAME location increase according to the sequence of new world monkeys, old world monkeys, apes, and African apes. Which, again, since these sequences are inherited, is what one would expect if evolution (common descent) was true. And these sequences pretty much line up with fossil evidence, other DNA evidence, blood protien evidence, morphological evidence, and even some behavioral evidence.

The article you referenced was interesting to me (because primate taxonomics is a HUGE interest of mine). It does seem to tangle the generally agreed upon seperation sequence of gorillas first, the human-chimp/bonobo split. However, the article you reference also talks about multiple remnants of the same viral DNA in chimp and gorilla genomes. How many of these locations are shared is not stated. Apparently, however, this virus would have been deadly when it landed near functional genes. It is possible that the virus ran rampant through hominid and hominoid populations, but that the remnants of the virus in gorillas and chimpanzees have more to do with common environment, and that the ancestor of modern human beings was somewhere else. From what I understand, it would be the common locations of the remnants that would be revealing. That is, if the gorilla and chimpanzee not only shared remnants of the viral DNA, but shared them in the same location and according to an expected rate of mutation, that would be a problematic issue for those who advocate a more recent human-chimpanzee/bonobo split (which would come as a relief to some more traditional primate taxonomists who have argued that it is unlikely that knuckle walking would have evolved independently twice). Of course, the reason that the more recent chimpanzee/bonobo-human split is so widely held is because of lots of other DNA and blood protein evidence.

But then, that is the nature of science. Self correcting.

If anyone is still reading this, I’m much too lazy to dig up my previous posts supporting evolution, but I’d offer a link with examples of evolution, Hawaiian-style

http://www.hawaii-forest.com/evolution.html

answer: nearly every day!! LOL!!

Re: Retrovirus
…there is no evidence it infected ancestors of modern-day humans, according to research by genome scientists.

The study’s lead authors are Zhaoshi Jiang, a Ph.D. student in Eichler’s lab at the UW, and Chris Yohn, a technician at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 9, 2005) — The ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas were infected with a deadly retrovirus about three to four million years ago, but there is no evidence it infected ancestors of modern-day humans, according to research by genome scientists. The virus struck after humans had split off the evolutionary tree from primates, researchers said. The infection may have played a role in the evolution of such great apes as chimps and gorillas. The research appears in the April issue of the journal Public Library of Science-Biology, which is available online on March 1.

Researchers studying portions of the genome containing ‘retroelements,’ also known as junk DNA, found many copies of a gene sequence in the chimp and gorilla genome that didn’t appear anywhere in the human genome. They translated that genome sequence into its corresponding protein, and discovered that it was the remnant of a retrovirus, a type of virus that copies its genetic information into the host’s genome. Evidence suggests that the ‘retroelement’ originated from an external retrovirus that actively infected ape species in the past.

“The reason retroviruses are so deadly, at the genetic level, is that they have a tremendous potential to mess up a gene and interfere with its expression,” explained Dr. Evan Eichler, UW associate professor of genome sciences and co-author of the study. “That can have negative effects. It’s a double-whammy: the virus infected and possibly killed off some of the population, but also caused genetic errors in survivors. Those errors would have later eliminated more of the population.”

The virus had invaded the genome in the germline – in sperm or egg cells – allowing the sequence to be passed on to future generations. In those animals in which the virus was taken up next to or inside a gene – in the part of the genome that codes for the most important biological functions – the virus had an even stronger effect.

What researchers don’t understand is why the virus affected the ancestors of chimps, gorillas, and Old World monkeys, but didn’t affect the ancestors of humans or of Asian apes like orangutans and gibbons. The infections took place independently, and did not originate in a common ancestor of humans and apes. The event also took place between three and four million years ago, well after the separation of humans from apes. That split is estimated to have occurred five to seven million years ago. During that period, ancestral humans were likely to be living in the same area of Africa as great apes. African apes may have been susceptibile to the virus, or ancestral humans and Asian apes may have been resistant to it. Another possibility is that some early humans may have carried the virus, but eventually died off.

Researchers also don’t know the impact the virus had on the primate species it did affect. They found many copies of the virus in the genomes of both species, but only a tiny fraction of those copies landed in or near a gene, where it would have the greatest impact. Other studies have shown that most retroviruses typically land near or within genes. This difference may mean the animals that had the virus taken up in or near a gene didn’t survive long. Because of that natural selection, researchers believe that the virus may have had major impacts on the formation of the species we now call chimps and gorillas. The virus struck when each of the primate groups was still an incipient species with widely varying populations.

If the virus had killed off much of the population of both species, it may have created what evolutionary biologists call a population bottleneck. This much smaller group of surviving animals would then sort out most of its genetic variation in relatively fewer generations than would a larger group. This would lead to a higher probability of rare genetic variants becoming fixed in a short time. Before long, a genetically disparate population, possibly with wide variations in morphology, would have emerged, leading to today’s chimps and gorillas.

###

The study’s lead authors are Zhaoshi Jiang, a Ph.D. student in Eichler’s lab at the UW, and Chris Yohn, a technician at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Adapted from materials provided by University Of Washington.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050308093951.htm

I have written about evolutionary trade-offs before, starting with early posts about trade-offs between seed size and seed number in plants, and trade-offs between the ability of insects to escape predators by flying away, versus the ability to hide from them by playing dead. I have also given some examples of the increasing use of sophisticated experimental (often molecular) methods in evolutionary biology. This week’s paper combines both themes.

The paper is “Restriction of an extinct retrovirus by the human TRIM5-alpha antiviral protein” by Shari Kaiser, Harmit Malik, and Michael Emerman, published in Science (vol.316 p.1756).

Retroviruses are made of RNA, but make DNA copies of themselves that can insert into the DNA of host cells they infect. HIV, the cause of AIDS, is a well-known example, but there are many others. If DNA copies of the retrovirus are inserted into cells giving rise to sperm or eggs, they can be passed to the next generation, as endogenous retroviruses. If the DNA inserts somewhere where it turns an important gene on or off, it may kill the host. Or, once in a while, this change may turn out to be beneficial. The few beneficial changes are the ones that survive and spread, just as the few mutations that are beneficial are the ones that persist.

VWXYNot has an interesting discussion of how a creationist web site misused one of her papers as evidence of “intelligent design.” She shows how shared endoviruses can be used to infer shared ancestry, providing yet more evidence that we share a recent ancestor with apes, less-recent ancestors with monkeys, etc. But that’s not what this week’s paper is about….

…except that the retrovirus it discusses is found in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans. Did our common ancestor somehow pass this endogenous retrovirus, PtERV, on to chimps and gorillas, but not to us? That seems unlikely, since each of them has multiple copies. How could we miss inheriting some of them, if they came from an ancestor shared by all three species?

In fact, if this difference in retrovirus infection were the only information we had about humans, chimps, and gorillas, it would make me wonder whether chimps might be more closely related to gorillas than they are to us. Then, they could both have inherited PtERV from an ancestor they share with each other, but not with us. But most modern family trees put chimps and humans together, on a separate branch from gorillas, so I’d look first for another explanation…

…and, as Deep Thought once said, “there is an answer; a simple answer.” The chimps and gorillas didn’t inherit the endogenous retrovirus from a common ancestor. By comparing the viral-origin DNA in chimps and gorillas, the authors estimate that they picked it up 3-4 million years ago. Although this is 1000 times longer ago than some religion-based estimates of the age of the earth, it is only one-thousandth the actual age of the earth. It was about the time when Lucy lived, and at least a million years after the last common ancestor of humans and chimps lived. So, their ancestors living at that time caught the virus; ours didn’t. [See comments for additional evidence for this.]

But why didn’t we? 3-4 million years ago, the (nonshared) ancestors of humans, chimps, and gorillas were all living in Africa, perhaps near each other. Could our ancestors have somehow been more resistant to this virus than theirs? That’s the main question answered by this paper.

Ideally, the authors would have resurrected some 3-million-year-old virus to test. This probably would have involved crossing rope bridges, being chased by tigers (not ordinarily found in Africa, but maybe escaped from a zoo?), and stealing a bit of amber (containing mosquitoes that had bitten chimps) from a Mayan temple (don’t ask me how that got to Africa). But, instead, they decided to resurrect the original PtERV virus from endogenous retroviruses in modern chimps.

Mutations over the last 3-4 million years have changed each individual copy in the chimp genome, but there are enough copies per chimp that they were able to figure out the original DNA sequence. They made a hybrid virus containing the original RNA sequence from PtERV, particularly for that part of the virus targeted by a defense protein, TRIM5-alpha, found in all apes, including humans.

They then tested whether this virus could infect cells with the human version of TRIM5-alpha, or those from various apes and monkeys. Most apes and monkeys were susceptible to the PtERV virus, but modern humans, modern chimps, and modern sooty mangabeys were resistant. Because chimp DNA is full of “fossil” endogenous retroviruses, we know that their ancestors 3-4 million years ago must have been susceptible, but they’ve apparently evolved resistance since then. We just beat them to it. Clever of us…

…except that all the species that are most resistant to PtERV are also highly susceptible to infection by HIV. They were able to identify a specific region in our TRIM5-alpha gene that determines specificity in virus defense. One sequence gives resistance to PtERV, another to HIV. Take your choice.

But, would it spoil some vast eternal plan if we had two different copies of TRIM5-alpha? Would that give resistance to both viruses? While we’re at it, wouldn’t it be nice if we had a different genetic code (for translating DNA into protein) from all other animals? We’d still be able to digest their proteins (same amino acids), but any virus that could reproduce in them wouldn’t be able to reproduce in us, because it would make nonfunctional proteins (different amino acid order). Of course, if humans had a different genetic code, that would make it really obvious that we had been created separately from other life, which would undermine the need for faith… “and vanished in a puff of logic.”
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2007/06/tradeoffs_in_defense_against_r.html

The status and assumption that humans have rights is a political, moral, and social belief. The idea that other humans have rights comes from the realization that others should have the same rights that you want for yourself or yours. Yes, Jefferson did reference a creator (not really the Biblical God, by the way) in the Declaration. However, the lack of reference to God in the Constitution was intentional. The government was based on a representational democratic republic, and the Bill of Rights was added to outline the rights of citizens as individuals and as groups. That is a legal basis for rights, and agreement to that legal basis is in no way dependent on the assumption of a creator. If you don’t see that, that is a a reflection of your limitations, not those of us who do not agree with you. Furthermore, you blithely ignored the reality that belief in a creator God is not predictive of whether someone believes that all other people have rights. After all, belief in a creator god has also been the basis of the divine right of kings, or intolerant theocracies based on Sharia or “Biblical” law. Furthermore, lack of belief in a creator god is not predictive of whether someone does not believe in the concepts of rights.

Your question and argument, rfl, is a non-starter.

As slaves, African Americans were never allowed to vote.

Uhm, no, this is not an equivalence. My agnosticism is not predicated on my acceptance of evolution. In fact, I believed in evolution when I was a Catholic.

“If not so, supply the evidence that convinced you that evolution is the ONLY way to explain life on this planet.”

Evolution (common ancestry) is supported by multiple lines of evidence, which I have in fact already referenced in this thread and others. I don’t think that such evidence is relevant to you, however. As for explanations, anyone can come up with explanations. The question, however, is whether the explanations are grounded in reality. The explanations that are grounded in reality, of course, are the explanations that are supported by multiple lines of independent evidence.

“Viruses of all types manifest themselves similarly in mammals. Rabies virus that is found quite a few mammals is hardly found in others (squirrels, etc.)

“Viruses, such as retro-viruses, which can be found in both humans and certain apes, usually manifest themselves in the same patterns of organs, skin, internal, bone, etc. It’s not a wonder that there are similarities, because the same type of organs are being attacked.”

Wrong. The retroviral sequences I am talking about are passed from ancestor to offspring. They are viral DNA sequences that first occurred when an organisms germ line (i.e., eggs and/or sperm) were infected. Thus, a retroviral sequence in the same location of the same chromosome in a group of humans is an indication that this group of humans shared a common ancestor who was infected. By the same token, a retroviral sequence in the same location of the same chromosome in all humans (and such retroviral sequences have been found) is an indication of an infection in an ancestor of all humans. But guess what, some of these common retroviral sequences (same location, same chromosome) are found in all humans and apes, and still others are found in all humans, all apes, and all old world monkeys, but not new world monkeys. Remember, these are inherited sequences.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vu5l013365w10q42/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

“What your proposal says to me is that you are stating that function and reactions of that functions to a certain virus is an indicator of genetic similarities.

“Sorry, I ain’t buying it simply because function in different forms does not mean the same design necessarily. Similarities yes, the same - no.”

But the sequences are not related to function, they are related to inheritance. Seperate infections, even by the same retrovirus, are not found on the exact same location on the exact same chromosome, they are found elsewhere. The only explanation, given the very nature of these infections, is that when two organisms share a retroviral sequence on the same location of the same chromosome, is that a shared ancestor has an infection. The shared retroviral sequence is a record of that infection in that ancestor.

Answer this one question, please

In a hypothetical country with a government like America’s, there are 100 white people and 10 black people, 65 out of the 100 white people believe that it is okay to own blacks as slaves.
Blacks are permitted to vote but nothing else.

1. Do the ten black people have a moral justification to demand their freedom?

FYI: It takes 51 people to make a majority.

When have I ever called you an insulting name?

You are a disgrace to your profession for accusing me of doing what I have not done but what you do routinely yourself.

Feel free to debate to yourself from here on, since you do not have to cajones to answer questions that reveal the incorrectness of your beliefs. I do not feel the need to respond to your feckless arguments.

A majority of those with a right to vote were content to let slavery continue unabated. Does a majority make right and wrong?

Are saying that in order for slavery to be wrong, you have to import enough slaves to your country so that you can create a majority of people who oppose it?

How can you make the statement above? Are you saying the only ones who could be counted as “people” were the slave owners? Anyone give the blacks a voice in this?

I answered your questions… just not what YOU wanted to hear… SOOO bring on the ad hominem CRAP as usual!! What an idiot!!

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
===========================

Took those founders a LONG time to see to it that those “rights” extended to ALL people!! Blacks, Women(Suffrage - sstill no ERA), Property ownership and voting rights, Gee, they left out a WHOLE lot of folks!!
They left out GAYS and LESBIANS….

Mercy, at first they didnt even think the common people were smart enough to elect their own Senators!!

Why would you just center on Slavery as a problem?? Jefferson wasnt nearly the Bible Thumper as you want to make him out to be… Do your homework on T. J. You might find it interesting!!

=============================================
Questions from rfl:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the Declaration of Independence?

2. Does the Constitution and Declaration of Independence contradict each other?

3. What is the likelihood that the founding fathers produced a Constitution that disagrees with the Declaration of Independence 11 years after they all signed the latter?

Response from Chas:

# 1) It is an importaant historical document.. NOT Law…

# 2) Irrelevant question. They are not comparative documents. One is the Law of the Land. The other is basically editorial commentary on a socio/politico/economic situation.

Anjswer this qestion Chas (now that you are running errands)

Does the plurality of support for slavery prior the Civil War make slavery morally acceptable during that time period?

If what you are saying is true, then blacks had no right to freedom during the time of slavery because a majority of people supported the institution.

A majority determined that Blacks had rights, and then and only then did that have rights? Not so. Blacks had an unaleianable right to freedom just like whites no matter who and how many people disagreed. It took a Civil War to pry the will of a majority of Whites from supressing the Blacks.

Based on Jeffersonian America, Might does not make right when it comes to the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights come frome the Creator and therefore can not morally be taken away from any government or man decreed law.

The founding fathers who helped craft the constitution also signed the Declaration of Independence. Would you sign a document saying:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Chas wouldn’t.

Fortunately, a few honorable and brave men did.