Jump to content


Photo

Illusions Of Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
19 replies to this topic

#1 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 30 July 2006 - 10:29 PM

This is a continuance of a thread in the Misc. section (What Would It Take To Convince You...) of an offer I made to SPQR to give his best two or three evidences for evolution, so that I could expose the illusions for him. :)

SPQR put forth two:

the fossil record which shows transitional fossils for most life on Earth including man and ape evolving from a
common ancestor


Illusion Exposed:

When evolutionists appeal to the fossil record, they almost always appeal to the vertebrate portion, despite the fact it is the most incomplete portion, a sliver representing less than 1 in 10,000 of all fossils, where 95% of vertebrate species are represented by a bone or less! In the portion that is leaps and bounds more complete where we have catalogued literally millions of intact specimens, the invertebrate portion, you very seldom get examples. Why, because there is no evolution in the fossil record! Evolutionists have to appeal to the incomplete portion so that they can use wild imagination to turn bone fragments into evolving wolves, evolving simians, etc.

You appealed to ape/man common ancestry. Which “hominid” fossil appeals to you? How many people at one time appealed to (or were duped by) Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal, Ramapithecus, etc only to have them overturned? SPQR, do you think Lucy is a good candidate?

For a more thorough expose of the illusion, please see my article, Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record.

humans share roughly 97% of their DNA with chimpanzees


Illusion Exposed:

Even at 97%, this still represents 90 million base pairs. Evolutionists themselves have shown mathematically how remarkably difficult it is to fix even a single positive mutation in a population, let alone 90 million! From Haldane’s dilemma we know that at most ~1600 could be fixed in 10 million years (double the alleged ape/man split), and this was even after using completely unrealistic assumptions in favor of evolution!

Further exposing the illusion comes from direct comparisons between apes/humans that yielded a mutation rate so high that each breeding couple through the evolution process would have had to produce 60 offspring, just to maintain the population size! See my article on this:

http://www.youngeart...on_article1.htm

SPQR, note that a leading geneticist who regularly publishes in the major science journals agreed my article uncovers a “serious problem” for evolution. Even if there is some explanation pending for this, why were you unaware of this problem? Why are kids who go to our public schools not given this information so they can make up there own minds? The point is, 3% difference is still way, way too much difference! But our kids are not told that. 97% similarity sounds compelling after all, so just tell them that part and keep the rest from them. Isn’t this indoctrination, not education?

BTW, a recent, direct segment comparison (1.8 million base pairs) yielded only 86.7% similarity [1]. Do you realize that if this number is accurate, the number of offspring in my mutation rate article would balloon into the millions!

Why again do you believe in evolution? :)

Fred

[1] - "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class I Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100.13 June 24,2003): 7708-7713.

#2 SPQR

SPQR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bellingham, WA (college)

Posted 31 July 2006 - 10:18 AM

When evolutionists appeal to the fossil record, they almost always appeal to the vertebrate portion, despite the fact it is the most incomplete portion, a sliver representing less than 1 in 10,000 of all fossils, where 95% of vertebrate species are represented by a bone or less! In the portion that is leaps and bounds more complete where we have catalogued literally millions of intact specimens, the invertebrate portion, you very seldom get examples. Why, because there is no evolution in the fossil record! Evolutionists have to appeal to the incomplete portion so that they can use wild imagination to turn bone fragments into evolving wolves, evolving simians, etc.


While I cannot single handedly refute this entire argument, I direct you to the interesting information that can be found on Wikipedia and the links provided there.

You appealed to ape/man common ancestry. Which “hominid” fossil appeals to you? How many people at one time appealed to (or were duped by) Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal, Ramapithecus, etc only to have them overturned? SPQR, do you think Lucy is a good candidate?


Why, exactly, do these four instances refute evolution? Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax that was exposed by science, Nebraska Man was a case of mistaken identification that was later corrected by science, Neanderthal, a homind, was neither hoaxed nor mistakenly identified and still provides incite into human evolution, and Ramapithecus is specimen orginally idendified as a direct ancestor of homo sapiens but was later found to be merely a hominid with no living ancestors.

Why is Lucy no longer a good candidate?

All the examples you provided fail in refuting evolution and, IMO, strengthen the image of science by making it clear that if a different hypothesis or exaplanation fits the evidence more precisely, be it hoax or misidentification, science will disregard the previous explanation in favor of the new one. This realization completely flies in the face of the misrepresentation of scientists as pompous, ivory-tower sitters who make unchanging and unsubstantiated proclamations.

To me, the existance of neanderthal has always seemed to be a thorn in the side of creationists simply becuase neanderthals have proven be a non-human organism, although closely related, with culture and possibly language. If neanderthals aren't human but still exhibit signs of a culture, such as buring their dead with carved artifacts, do they have a soul? And if they do, why weren't they mentioned in the bible? IMO, the existance of neanderthals pokes more holes in the idea of creation than it does in the theory of evolution.

As for evidence for human evolution, take a look at this.


Even at 97%, this still represents 90 million base pairs. Evolutionists themselves have shown mathematically how remarkably difficult it is to fix even a single positive mutation in a population, let alone 90 million! From Haldane’s dilemma we know that at most ~1600 could be fixed in 10 million years (double the alleged ape/man split), and this was even after using completely unrealistic assumptions in favor of evolution!

Further exposing the illusion comes from direct comparisons between apes/humans that yielded a mutation rate so high that each breeding couple through the evolution process would have had to produce 60 offspring, just to maintain the population size!


This article might be prove interesting to you.

SPQR, note that a leading geneticist who regularly publishes in the major science journals agreed my article uncovers a “serious problem” for evolution.


Can I have a name for this leading geneticist and possibly a link or a source where this statement can be found?

Even if there is some explanation pending for this, why were you unaware of this problem? Why are kids who go to our public schools not given this information so they can make up there own minds? The point is, 3% difference is still way, way too much difference! But our kids are not told that. 97% similarity sounds compelling after all, so just tell them that part and keep the rest from them. Isn’t this indoctrination, not education?


97% is compelling. The 3% percent that makes humans human only serves to prove how powerful DNA is.

BTW, a recent, direct segment comparison (1.8 million base pairs) yielded only 86.7% similarity [1]. Do you realize that if this number is accurate, the number of offspring in my mutation rate article would balloon into the millions!


An actual reading of the entire article reveals that its point is not that humans share less DNA with chimps than orignally thought but that the similarities that do exist were arrived at by a different evolutionary mechanism than originally thought.



Why again do you believe in creationism? :)


View Post



#3 Supersport

Supersport

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ft Worth, Texas

Posted 31 July 2006 - 03:26 PM

I'm not trying sway this discussion off course.....but the arguement about 97% similar DNA between humans and monkeys is pointless. I think it's going to be proven that DNA is not necessarily what defines an organism.

Now, with complete genome sequences piling up, biologists are facing a different sort of puzzle. “This is an extreme view,” says Genetics and Development professor Michael Levine, “but the most surprising thing about the organisms sequenced so far is not how different they are but how much they have in common."

It turns out that what makes a fly a fly and a frog a frog may have less to do with their particular complements of genes than with the way those genes are expressed. Genome complexity does not appear to correlate with organismal complexity. Fruit flies have fewer genes than nematodes, for example. And the genes themselves are quite homologous. Roughly speaking, much of the animal life on Earth has redeployed the same basic set of genes in different ways to produce dramatically different results.

One of the center’s principal goals is to decode the regulatory DNA. When and where a gene comes on as an embryo develops can make a much bigger difference than a few changes to its amino acid sequence.


http://mcb.berkeley....s/evo-devo.html

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I'm assuming that DNA (genetic traits) can be expressed in many different ways depending on environmentally-cued hormones. Evolutionists have long relied on specific genes to correlate with specific traits. I don't believe that's the way it works. S

P.S Thank you Fred for posting your article....fascinating.

#4 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 31 July 2006 - 05:36 PM

While I cannot single handedly refute this entire argument, I direct you to the interesting information that can be found on Wikipedia and the links provided there.

View Post


We discourage simple pasting of links to defend your argument (see guideline #3). If you post a link you need to comment on it. This forum guideline was actually suggested by an evolutionist and I thought it was a good idea and so we implemented it.

Why is Lucy no longer a good candidate?


Because overwhelming evidence has now established that it had a Stooped gait (did not habitually walk upright), has curved fingers and toes, was a Knuckle-walker, and lived in trees (arboreal). Probably a bonobo, or extinct variety of one. Many evolutionists and even the bonobo conservation site (bonobo.org) admit bonobos resemble A afarensis (Lucy)

If that isn't enough for you, even Lucy’s discoverer has admitted “Lucy has recently been dethroned”. So if Lucy is so convincing, why are more and more evolutionists falling off the Lucy bandwagon, even apparently the discoverer himself? And this is what you championed as your hope for evidence for evolution? How long will our kids continue to be taught Lucy is an ancestor?

Do you think the schools should include this cache of information on Lucy, or keep brainwashing kids that Lucy is their great... great grandmama?

All the examples you provided fail in refuting evolution and, IMO, strengthen the image of science by making it clear that if a different hypothesis or exaplanation fits the evidence more precisely, be it hoax or misidentification, science will disregard the previous explanation in favor of the new one. This realization completely flies in the face of the misrepresentation of scientists as pompous, ivory-tower sitters who make unchanging and unsubstantiated proclamations.


This is a very common cop-out evolutionists fall back on when they are proven wrong. “The science is wonderful because it works to correct itself!”. Paleease. I think the next time I hear that, I hope I didn’t eat a big burrito for lunch because I just might lose it. :)

Since no one I know of on this forum has made the claim in your last sentence, you have effectively erected what is commonly described as an itchy, scratchy, strawman!

Regarding Neandarthal, there is plenty of evidence they are homo sapien and in fact many evolutionists now classify them as such. SO if it is so compelling, why can we find evolutionists who admit it’s not in the human family tree? They were cave dwellers, and likely suffered from lack of Vitamin D and hence the bone deformities (but they would still be indistinguishable from modern man). And yes, the Bible does mention cave dwellers. We have cave dwellers today! For one such modern day cave dweller, click here.

Can I have a name for this leading geneticist and possibly a link or a source where this statement can be found?


Its in my article, it was personal communication with Dr James Crow.

97% is compelling. The 3% percent that makes humans human only serves to prove how powerful DNA is.


No, its an illusion. You can claim all you want it is “compelling” you can scream it from the mountain tops, but I already showed why it is an illusion, and you did nothing to refute my argument. Why? Because your mind is already made up despite what evidence you are shown? :)

An actual reading of the entire article reveals that its point is not that humans share less DNA with chimps than orignally thought but that the similarities that do exist were arrived at by a different evolutionary mechanism than originally thought.


Huh? Nice try. Please show us where the article says this. Good luck!

Fred

#5 SPQR

SPQR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bellingham, WA (college)

Posted 31 July 2006 - 09:35 PM

Because overwhelming evidence has now established that it had a Stooped gait (did not habitually walk upright), has curved fingers and toes, was a Knuckle-walker, and lived in trees (arboreal). Probably a bonobo, or extinct variety of one. Many evolutionists and even the bonobo conservation site (bonobo.org) admit bonobos resemble A afarensis (Lucy)

If that isn't enough for you, even Lucy’s discoverer has admitted  “Lucy has recently been dethroned”. So if Lucy is so convincing, why are more and more evolutionists falling off the Lucy bandwagon, even apparently the discoverer himself? And this is what you championed as your hope for evidence for evolution? How long will our kids continue to be taught Lucy is an ancestor?

Do you think the schools should include this cache of information on Lucy, or keep brainwashing kids that Lucy is their great... great grandmama?


From this article:

The so-called 'savanna theory' on how A. afarensis evolved bipedalism hangs on the evidence that around 6 to 8 million years ago there seems to have been a mass extinction of forest dwelling creatures including the oldest hominins recognizable: Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Orrorin tugenensis. This triggered a burst of adaptive radiation, an evolutionary characteristic that generates new species quickly. Lucy's genetic forebears were tree dwelling apes, but in Lucy's world the trees would have been much fewer, and Lucy would have been forced to find a living on the flat savanna. Being bipedal would have had evolutionary advantages. For example, with the eyes higher up, she could see further than quadrupeds. Bipedalism also saves energy. The disadvantages of bipedalism were great—Lucy was the slowest moving primate of her time, for example, but according to the hypothesis, the advantages of bipedalism must have outweighed the disadvantages.
  There had previously been problems in the past with designating Australopithecus afarensis as a fully bipedal hominine. In fact these hominines may have occasionally walked upright but still walked on all fours like apes; the curved fingers on A. afarensis are similar to those of modern-day apes, which use them for climbing trees. The phalanges (finger bones) aren't just prone to bend at the joints, but rather the bones themselves are curved. Another aspect of the Australopithecus skeleton that differs from human skeleton is the iliac crest of the pelvic bones. The iliac crest, or hip bone, on a Homo sapiens extends front-to-back, allowing an aligned gait. A human walks with one foot in front of the other. However, on Australopithecus and on other ape and ape-like species such as the orangutan, the iliac crest extends laterally (out to the side), causing the legs to stick out to the side, not straight forward. This gives a side-to-side rocking motion as the animal walks, not a forward gait.


There is no lucy bandwagon." The "Lucy dethroned" statement most likely stems from the fact that there have been hominid fossils found after "Lucy" that show hominid evolution earlier on in the human family tree, or more appropriately, family bush. "Lucy" is thought to be"dethroned" because earlier "steps" in human evolution have been discovered. However, she is still considered extremely important in the big picture of human evolution.


This is a very common cop-out evolutionists fall back on when they are proven wrong. “The science is wonderful because it works to correct itself!”. Paleease. I think the next time I hear that, I hope I didn’t eat a big burrito for lunch because I just might lose it. :)


So, science should not include newly found data into its hypotheses and theories? Science should not work to correct hoaxes and misidentifications? I find it humorous that creationists continue to bring up Plitdown Man as evidence against evolution. "One fossil was faked, they all must be hoaxes!" I guess this line of thinking fits well into creationist reasoning, the Bible must be taken literally because if one part is wrong, it all must be wrong. Unfortunately, science does not work that way.



Since no one I know of on this forum has made the claim in your last sentence, you have effectively erected what is commonly described as an itchy, scratchy, strawman!


I'm sure that last statement may have never been stated here, I never said it was. I have simply noticed that in my encounters with creationists and other deniers of modern science that statement seems to represent the prevailing sentiment. If I misrepresented myself, I apologize.



Regarding Neandarthal, there is plenty of evidence they are homo sapien and in fact many evolutionists now classify them as such. SO if it is so compelling, why can we find evolutionists who admit it’s not in the human family tree? They were cave dwellers, and likely suffered from lack of Vitamin D and hence the bone deformities (but they would still be indistinguishable from modern man). And yes, the Bible does mention cave dwellers. We have cave dwellers today!


"Lack of Vitamin D"!? Looks like some has been drinking from the AiG "kool-aide." :)

Whether neandethals are a sub-species of human or not really isn't important in this discussion. The point is, they existed. You have yet to explain why their mere existance refutes human evolution.

Want I meant by my "neanderthals in the Bible" statement was that creationists are never really able to explain them away completely. If God created humans in His image, what's the deal with neanderthals?


Its in my article, it was personal communication with Dr James Crow.


Thank you.

No, its an illusion. You can claim all you want it is “compelling” you can scream it from the mountain tops, but I already showed why it is an illusion, and you did nothing to refute my argument. Why? Because your mind is already made up despite what evidence you are shown? :)


I looked at your evidence, and it was not compelling to me. Just as you look at the mountains of evidence for evolution and say, "No way!" I believe the holes and deficiances of Haldane's dilemma have been explained elsewhere in this forum. I invite you again to have a look at this article:

The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.


Huh? Nice try. Please show us where the article says this. Good luck!


The article points out both our statments. And no where does it say this new information somehow deludes are kinship with chimpanzees:

In summary, this work reports the sequence of one-half of the chimpanzee MHC, which to date represents the longest continuous sequence within this species, our closest evolutionary relative. Comparative genomics with the orthologous human MHC class I region unveils a wealth of information, the most salient being the existence of a large number of indels that appear to be the main driving force behind the observed differences between the two species. Hence our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species appears to be erroneous, because this work, along with another recently published analysis, puts both species much further apart, >10% here and 5% in another recently published study (40), albeit the latter study compared shorter segments of both genomes. This relatively high and previously unexpected degree of sequence divergence might have functional implications not only within the coding sequences itself but also within regulatory elements (41, 42). Within the MHC per se, the most notable effect of indels appears to be the generation of a single chimeric Patr-MIC by fusion of MICA and MICB. This, along with other indels as well as nucleotide substitutions [which could be dubbed "transspecies single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)"], might therefore directly contribute to the patent difference between these two closely linked species with regard to susceptibility to a number of infectious as well as autoimmune disorders, most of which are primarily linked to the MHC. The study of these transspecies SNPs might further help to pinpoint the most ancient and perhaps functionally relevant human SNPs among the increasing numbers that are being continuously identified.





View Post



#6 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 01 August 2006 - 10:08 PM

SPQR, the part you snipped out of your Wikipedia reference actually supports the view that Lucy is an extinct form of Bonobo! But you miss the point. If Lucy is such a compelling argument, why is it easy to find evolutionists who admit Lucy is nothing but a “bloody ape” (in the words of noted anatomist and evolutionist Lord Solly Zuckerman)? You guys like to claim evolution is as well proven as gravity, yet I don’t know of any scientist who denies gravity exists, do you? However I can point to plenty of evolutionist scientists who deny Lucy is a human ancestor. This is what you lay your hope on? If the evidence is so solid, like it is for gravity, shouldn’t virtually every evolutionist science accept Lucy, as they do gravity?

Question: Should kids in our public schools be taught that many well-respected scientists, including plenty of evolutionist scientists, reject Lucy as man’s ancestor? Should they be shown the studies Charles Oxnard has done that show Lucy is probably a bonobo? Or should they just be told Lucy is a human ancestor and leave it at that?

This is a very common cop-out evolutionists fall back on when they are proven wrong. “The science is wonderful because it works to correct itself!”. Paleease. I think the next time I hear that, I hope I didn’t eat a big burrito for lunch because I just might lose it.


So, science should not include newly found data into its hypotheses and theories? Science should not work to correct hoaxes and misidentifications? I find it humorous that creationists continue to bring up Plitdown Man as evidence against evolution. "One fossil was faked, they all must be hoaxes!" I guess this line of thinking fits well into creationist reasoning, the Bible must be taken literally because if one part is wrong, it all must be wrong. Unfortunately, science does not work that way.


You sure are fond of strawman arguments. :) Of course science should embrace new data whenever it occurs and overturn paradigms. The point is, the data never supports evolution, that’s why you get these bogus findings all the time. Evolution is anti-science built almost entirely on illusions, plus the occasional fraud sprinkled in such as Piltdown man, Haeckel’s faked embryos, and the Lucy fraud found at various museums around the country where they show Lucy as having completely human feet. If evolution is so solid, why resort to illusions and fraud?

Professor Betsy Schumann admits that the feet of the Lucy statue at the St Louis museum are ‘probably are not accurate’, but when asked if the statue should be changed, she said “absolutely not”. I think Mike Riddle said it best: “In other words, evolution must use bad science to deceive people”.

Question: Do you think inaccurate feet should remain on a statue of Lucy to give the illusion she is a human ancestor?

Whether neandethals are a sub-species of human or not really isn't important in this discussion. The point is, they existed. You have yet to explain why their mere existance refutes human evolution.


I never said the existence of Neanderthals refutes evolution, why would I say that? That would be just as silly as me saying that the existence of Orientals and Germans refutes evolution.

Want I meant by my "neanderthals in the Bible" statement was that creationists are never really able to explain them away completely. If God created humans in His image, what's the deal with neanderthals?


We’ve long had a very solid explanation for them, and plenty of evolutionists came around to our way of thinking (though it took decades for them to do so). A wealth of evidence is in, and Neanderthals are completely human! Though there is tons of evidence to now support this, its just that many evolutionists wish to cling to ancestry status because of their commitment to the fairytale of evolution. So they hand wave away this evidence. Again, if Neanderthals are such a powerful argument for evolution, why is it so easy for me to find evolutionists who admit Neanderthal is fully human?

I believe the holes and deficiances of Haldane's dilemma have been explained elsewhere in this forum. I invite you again to have a look at this article:


There have been no holes pointed out in this forum regarding Haldane’s dilemma that I am aware of, that’s just wishful thinking on your part.

The article you cite is, well, dumb as dumb gets. It’s downright silly to claim chimps should be in our genus! This reminds me of the evolutionist on the Yahoo board who claimed all we needed to do was send a chimp to public school and it could become as smart as us! LOL! (I guess there was a grain of truth to that given the state of our public schools :) ). I think this article is so over the top that it’s embarrassing for most evolutionists to support it, and why there has been very little reported on it. Why is it easy to dismantle? Two glaring facts: 1) it is completely speculative for the author to claim he knows what and where the “critical” regions of DNA are, 2) overwhelming evidence has accumulated that the non-coding areas are extremely critical. Just do a search on “highly conserved DNA”, or “functional constraint”, you’ll be amazed at the number of articles that will turn up, and its growing everyday. If these areas truly are “junk”, why do they have no mutations in them (high constraint)? “Highly conserved” and “constraint” basically mean that mutations to these sequences aren’t found because they are likely lethal! It proves they have an important function.

Here’s just one of many examples I could give you:

“The mammalian transcriptome and the function of non-coding DNA sequences”, Svetlana A Shabalina and Nikolay A Spiridonov, Genome Biol. 2004; 5(4): 105.

http://www.pubmedcen...bmedid=15059247

Finally, reposting the article where you claim “[their point was that] similarities that do exist were arrived at by a different evolutionary mechanism than originally thought” did nothing to support your claim! You should either punt on this one, or show the specific part of the article that supports your claim and emphasize it (underline it and/or put it in bold). It’s also a viable option to admit when you are wrong. :)

Fred

#7 SPQR

SPQR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bellingham, WA (college)

Posted 02 August 2006 - 11:10 AM

You guys like to claim evolution is as well proven as gravity, yet I don’t know of any scientist who denies gravity exists, do you? However I can point to plenty of evolutionist scientists who deny Lucy is a human ancestor. This is what you lay your hope on?


Okay, since you seem to have some bias against poor "Lucy," I'll stop bringing her up, since she is hardly, "...what (I) lay (my) hopes on." How about these hansome fellows:

Austrlaopithecus africanus:

Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 3.3 and 2.4 million years ago in the Pliocene. In common with the older Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus was slenderly built, or gracile, and was thought to have been a direct ancestor of modern humans. However, fossil remains indicate that A. africanus was significantly more like modern humans than A. afarensis, with a more human-like cranium permitting a larger brain and more humanoid facial features.


Homo habilis:

Homo habilis is thought to be the ancestor of the lankier and more sophisticated, Homo ergaster, which in turn gave rise to the more human-appearing species, Homo erectus. Debates continue over whether H. habilis is a direct human ancestor, and whether all of the known fossils are properly attributed to the species.


Shall I go on? There are dozens of specimens besides "Lucy" which show human evolution from a common ancestor with modern apes. "Lucy" is just a piece in the puzzle.






Question: Should kids in our public schools be taught that many well-respected scientists, including plenty of evolutionist scientists, reject Lucy as man’s ancestor? Should they be shown the studies Charles Oxnard has done that show Lucy is probably a bonobo? Or should they just be told Lucy is a human ancestor and leave it at that?


Kids should be taught whatever the evidence shows. And the evidence shows that while "Lucy" did indead resemble a modern ape, she still had human-like features.

You sure are fond of strawman arguments. :)  Of course science should embrace new data whenever it occurs and overturn paradigms. The point is, the data never supports evolution, that’s why you get these bogus findings all the time. Evolution is anti-science built almost entirely on illusions, plus the occasional fraud sprinkled in such as Piltdown man, Haeckel’s faked embryos, and the Lucy fraud found at various museums around the country where they show Lucy as having completely human feet. If evolution is so solid, why resort to illusions and fraud?


I can't keep arguing with somone who refuses to accept the evidence for human evolution which exists. Your continual proclamation that evolution is an illusion mystifies me. Your persistance in bringing up the few droplets of forgery, which have all been exposed and corrected, in a deluge of credible evidence for human evolution only proves the weakness of the evidence for creationism.

Professor Betsy Schumann admits that the feet of the Lucy statue at the St Louis museum are ‘probably are not accurate’, but when asked if the statue should be changed, she said “absolutely not”. I think Mike Riddle said it best: “In other words, evolution must use bad science to deceive people”.


They may not be entirely accurate, but this is the best so far science has to go one for that particular species. When more fossils of A. afarensis are revealed, the exhibit will undoubtably be changed.

I never said the existence of Neanderthals refutes evolution, why would I say that? That would be just as silly as me saying that the existence of Orientals and Germans refutes evolution.


Really? Then will you please explain this paragraph located in your first post in this very topic:

You appealed to ape/man common ancestry. Which “hominid” fossil appeals to you? How many people at one time appealed to (or were duped by) Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal, Ramapithecus, etc only to have them overturned?

(bolding mine)

You included Neanderthal with speciemens which have either been faked or misidentified. Why?

We’ve long had a very solid explanation for them, and plenty of evolutionists came around to our way of thinking (though it took decades for them to do so). A wealth of evidence is in, and Neanderthals are completely human! Though there is tons of evidence to now support this, its just that many evolutionists wish to cling to ancestry status because of their commitment to the fairytale of evolution. So they hand wave away this evidence. Again, if Neanderthals are such a powerful argument for evolution, why is it so easy for me to find evolutionists who admit Neanderthal is fully human?


Can you provide some of the "wealth of evidence" which proves Neanderthals were "completely human"? If you can, you might want to send it to these guys since they seem to be terribly mistaken.

Just do a search on “highly conserved DNA”, or “functional constraint”, you’ll be amazed at the number of articles that will turn up, and its growing everyday. If these areas truly are “junk”, why do they have no mutations in them (high constraint)? “Highly conserved” and “constraint” basically mean that mutations to these sequences aren’t found because they are likely lethal!  It proves they have an important function.


Okay, so that type of DNA is important. Why does that diminish the importance of humans sharing that portion of their DNA with chimpanzees?

Finally, reposting the article where you claim “[their point was that] similarities that do exist were arrived at by a different evolutionary mechanism than originally thought” did nothing to support your claim! You should either punt on this one, or show the specific part of the article that supports your claim and emphasize it (underline it and/or put it in bold). It’s also a viable option to admit when you are wrong. :)

Happy to do so:
Despite their high degree of genomic similarity, reminiscent of their relatively recent separation from each other (6 million years ago), the molecular basis of traits unique to humans vs. their closest relative, the chimpanzee, is largely unknown. This report describes a large-scale single-contig comparison between human and chimpanzee genomes via the sequence analysis of almost one-half of the immunologically critical MHC. This 1,750,601-bp stretch of DNA, which encompasses the entire class I along with the telomeric part of the MHC class III regions, corresponds to an orthologous 1,870,955 bp of the human HLA region. Sequence analysis confirms the existence of a high degree of sequence similarity between the two species. However, and importantly, this 98.6% sequence identity drops to only 86.7% taking into account the multiple insertions/deletions (indels) dispersed throughout the region. This is functionally exemplified by a large deletion of 95 kb between the virtual locations of human MICA and MICB genes, which results in a single hybrid chimpanzee MIC gene, in a segment of the MHC genetically linked to species-specific handling of several viral infections (HIV/SIV, hepatitis B and C) as well as susceptibility to various autoimmune diseases. Finally, if generalized, these data suggest that evolution may have used the mechanistically more drastic indels instead of the more subtle single-nucleotide substitutions for shaping the recently emerged primate species.
Also:
Despite the facts that structural and/or functional orthologues for all human HLA genes have been found in chimpanzee (15–19) (HLA-A/B/C/E/F/G vs. Patr-A/B/C/E/F/G) and that there is no doubt that the MHC biology between these two close species is nearly interchangeable, the genomic architecture of chimp MHC is unknown, although it is assumed to be closely linear to that of human. Our aim was to capitalize on our detailed knowledge of the human HLA region to jump-start a large-scale comparative genomic analysis with regard to that of the chimpanzee (P. troglodytes) MHC (called Patr). Not only will the chimpanzee MHC sequence provide an in-depth analysis of this important genomic region between two such closely related species, but it also has the intrinsic power to unravel the molecular basis for some important biological differences between us and the chimpanzee. In this regard, we present 1.75 Mb of continuous genomic sequence linking the Lymphotoxin B (LTB) gene in the telomeric area of the class III region to Patr-F locus (chimpanzee HLA-F orthologue) at the telomeric end of the MHC class I region.

Source

Keep in my mind that I cannot convey the entire point of a scientific article by merely posting snippets of said article. One must read the entire piece in question to get the full effect.

P.S. I apologize for the incorrect configuration of this post. I don't know why I can't get the quote tags to work.

Edit: The forum program limits quotes to ten per post. It is written in the code of the program, so it is not changable by us. Going over ten quotes makes the quote boxes not work.

#8 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 04 September 2006 - 12:59 AM

Fred,

This year the 97% went up to 99%. You need to update your science book :)

#9 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Respectfully Withheld

Posted 06 September 2006 - 07:42 PM

Genetists have split genes into two categories – "coding DNA" and "non-coding DNA". The "non-coding DNA" is referred to as “junk DNA” because they have not yet identified any particular functions for it. The 96% similarity (some say 99%) comes solely within the "coding DNA". As such 96% of a value less than 100% will be less than 96%.

#10 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 08 September 2006 - 01:25 AM

The boundary between junk DNA and codning DNA in the genome is constantly up for revision, of course, based as it is on our current understanding of the coding.

Another form of "junk DNA" is mitochondrial DNA, of which none is thought to have any coding function. As it is therefore not subject to the cleansing by natural selection, it changes faster than chromosome DNA, and it is used to trace ancestry.

Hans

#11 Phaedrus

Phaedrus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Indianapolis

Posted 08 September 2006 - 04:04 PM

Even at 97%, this still represents 90 million base pairs. Evolutionists themselves have shown mathematically how remarkably difficult it is to fix even a single positive mutation in a population, let alone 90 million! From Haldane’s dilemma we know that at most ~1600 could be fixed in 10 million years (double the alleged ape/man split), and this was even after using completely unrealistic assumptions in favor of evolution!


Fred,

It may well have escaped your attention that the 97% figure is off by a couple of percentage points. In Sept. 2005 The Chimpanzee Genome Consortium published the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. What they identified was 35 million single nucletide substitutions and 5 million indels totaling 90 MBs, that is 125 Mbs. Then when you factor in the chromosomal rearrangements there are 8 hotspots from 2 Mbs to 4 Mbs in length totaling 20 Mbs. That brings the total amont of divergence to something like 145 Mbs, most estimates put the sequence identity around 95% (4.8%).

http://www.nature.co...ature04072.html

That is not even the best part, when they compare the protein coding genes they found that 83% show differences at an aminio acid sequence level. Currently, the protein coding genes have about 40,000 nucleotides that diverge. That doesn't sound like a lot but there are differences in virtually all of them. This one in particular is impossible to explain by random variation and spontaneous mutations. A gene that is 118 nucleotides long is highly conserved for 310 million years, allowing only 2 substitutions (chicken/chimp divergence). Then about 2 1/2 million years ago as the human ancestors brains began to expand 18 substitutions are not only allowed but fixed in all ancestoral populations. What do you expect the odds against that are?

"Forty-nine regions, which the team called human accelerated regions (HARs), rose to the top of the list. Surprisingly, only two of these regions code for proteins. Instead, the majority of the regions tend to be located near genes that are involved in regulating the function of genes. Furthermore, 12 of the regions are adjacent to genes involved in the development of the brain.

The Nature paper looks in depth at the region that has undergone the most change in the human lineage, which the researchers called HAR1 (for human accelerated region 1). Only two of the region's 118 bases changed in the 310 million years separating the evolutionary lineages of the chicken and the chimp. Incredibly, since the human lineage separated from that of the chimp, 18 of the 118 nucleotides have changed. This region "stood out," said Pollard."

http://www.biologyne...fast_track.html

This is exciting research but evolutionists won't touch it with a ten foot pole, just like they don't care for the actual fossil evidence. If you look at the fossils the Homo lines brain is relativly static until about 2 1/2 million years ago (400cc-600cc). This is pretty close to modern chimp proportions then suddenly with the emergance of Homo erectus it jumps to 1,000cc. Turkana boy is my favorite, the skull is said to be of an adolecent around 9-12 years old.

Can you see the problem with this statement by the Smithsonian Insitute about Turkana Boy?

"Earlier humans had roughly the same body size as modern chimpanzee. Yet this immature male had already surpassed a height of five feet at the time of his death, and probably would have attained a height of 6 feet and a weight of roughly 150 lbs."

http://www.mnh.si.ed...s/ha/WT15k.html

Do they expect us to believe that chimpanzees from 9-12 years old stand 5 foot tall, weigh 150 lbs with a cranial capacity nearly 900cc? This was found in Southern Africa (Hadar) not in Central Africa where apes actually live, which leds us to future conclude that this is nothing more then an antideluving human child.

Something else that might be of interest. You remember Lucy right, the little ape they paraded as one of our ancestors for so long. They like to place her at least 5 million years out because she was fully bipedal. Did you know that they actually tested the bed she came out of once and found that it was actually about 900,000 years old?

Here is the best part, Lucy was buried beneath some kind of volcanic ash which is why she was so well preserved. Her contemporaries died, in mass, but in a different way. That drowned in somekind of a flood apparently:

"Michael Bush, one of Don Johanson's students, made another major discovery in 1975: near Lucy, on the other side of the hill, he found the "First Family", including 200 fragments of A. afarensis. The site of the findings is now known as "site 333", by a count of fossil fragments uncovered, such as teeth and pieces of jaw. 13 individuals were uncovered and all were adults, with no injuries caused by carnivores. All 13 individuals seemed to have died at the same time, thus Don concluded that they might have been killed instantly from a flash flood"

http://en.wikipedia....hecus_afarensis

That is why Creationism gets the full court press, the facts from Genetics and Paleontology are too devastating for the Single Common Ancestor Model. Modern genetics has no clue how the human brain could have evolved from that of an ape, since it would have had to triple in size over night. This would mean hundreds if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes, particularly those related to neural function. This would have had to happen, based on the fossil evidence in about half a million years. All the ancestors from Homo Erectus onward have features within the range of modern human variance.

The 97% figure was being too generous Fred, it is known to be more like 95% and growing. One final bit of evolutionary fairytale trivia for you:

Why are there so many human ancestors discovered in Central Africa and no ape ancestors? I mean it seems especially odd given that apes do not live anywhere else on earth and never have lived anywhere else.

Grace and peace,
Mark

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 September 2006 - 12:21 AM

What I find funny is when it comes to percent, it seems that no one can really make up their mind about what the percent actually is. And it's forever changing.

Yahoo 95%

Yahoo 96%

Yahoo 97%

Yahoo 98%

Yahoo 99%

Then when it comes to what percent of what number, no one can make a clear answer of this either.

Example: 3% of 100 = 3. Which would mean we have only three things different. 3% of 1000 = 30. etc....

So exactly what number are we 3% different between chimps and humans?
1) Is it a number bigger than a million?
2) Is it a number bigger than a billion?
3) Is it a number bigger than a trillion?

#13 Phaedrus

Phaedrus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Indianapolis

Posted 12 September 2006 - 03:18 PM

What I find funny is when it comes to percent, it seems that no one can really make up their mind about what the percent actually is. And it's forever changing.


This has been definitively settled:

"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."

F:\Webpages\Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome Nature.htm

The 35 million substitutions are single nucleotides, the five million indels are 90 million nucleotides total and 20 million base pairs involved in the chromosomal rearrangements. That comes to 145 Mbs which is 4.8%.

The genes so far examined show 40,000 nucleotides that diverge of various length. They explored over 13,000 of them with prehaps another 7,000 left to go. This is an intitial sequence so it will be revised over the next few years but it is an entire genome. This is a definitive study.

#14 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 12 September 2006 - 06:36 PM

Hi Mark,

I was aware of the varying numbers of similarity. I actually referenced one in the OP where one recent study showed 87% similarity! ("Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class I Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100.13 June 24,2003): 7708-7713.) But even if we use the oft-cited 97% similarity used by evos, it still doesn’t help them, it would still be mathematically implausible to genetically achieve this difference in the allotted time.

[/quote]
[quote]Why are there so many human ancestors discovered in Central Africa and no ape ancestors? I mean it seems especially odd given that apes do not live anywhere else on earth and never have lived anywhere else. [/quote]

Evos do love making monkeys out of men, don’t they? :)

“The fossil record of the living great apes is poor. The orangutan is actually the only great ape that has a fossil record. No African fossil has ever been found that is related to chimpanzees or gorillas.” – National Geographic, June 2004

Fred

#15 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 September 2006 - 09:02 PM

This has been definitively settled:


If it were settled in the minds of evos. they would all agree with you. My post was to show how they act and sound like they know. When it all looks more like a smoke screen to me. For if they were into only reporting truth. They would all agree on one number and stick with it until proven wrong. And they would not have such varying numbers as we see.

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 September 2006 - 11:00 PM

And don't forget that the DNA also affect every cell in the body. So not only is the percent of DNA is different, but every cell that is affected by the DNA code. Currently it is estimated the human body has 50-100 trillion cells. So 3-4% of this, plus the DNA difference adds up to a much bigger number than evos would like.

#17 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 13 September 2006 - 11:00 AM

Personaly I don't think it makes a difference if the number was 99% percent. So what?

Evo's are so anxious for "anything" that may indicate that evolution occured that to them this is "evidence" in support of it. However, this can just as well be evidence of a common designer, creator.

I wonder what percent difference one can calculate from say a car and a single engine airplane? What if they were 90% percent similar? No one is obviously going to conclude that a plane naturaly evolved from a car because they're so similar are they?

#18 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 September 2006 - 02:46 PM

Personaly I don't think it makes a difference if the number was 99% percent. So what?

View Post


It actually has huge implications. If you get a chance read my Mutation Rate Problem article. Evolutionists assume chimps and humans are related, and based on this assumption determine a mutation rate. The derived a rate of 3.4 deleterious (harmful) mutations per organism per generation was based on a DNA similarity of 97%. I used a Poisson distribution to prove that a mutation rate of U=3.4 means each breeding pair would need to produce 60 offspring per female just to maintain the population size, let alone have excess to "evolve" something! A leading geneticist agreed with my math, and surprisingly also agreed my article revealed a "serious problem" for evolutionary theory.

Now consider the recent study that lists the difference at 95%. This will greatly affect the rate of the Keightley article. It would be interesting to see just how much it will affect it, but let's conservatively estimate that it pushes the mutation rate to U=5. This would mean each female would need to produce 148 offspring just to maintain the status quo! This would have to be the average across ALL females.

So even a small increase percentage-wise in the DNA difference between chimps and man exponentially add to this problem.

Fred

#19 Phaedrus

Phaedrus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Indianapolis

Posted 15 September 2006 - 02:17 AM

Hi Mark,

I was aware of the varying numbers of similarity. I actually referenced one in the OP where one recent study showed 87% similarity! ("Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class I Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100.13 June 24,2003): 7708-7713.)  But even if we use the oft-cited 97% similarity used by evos, it still doesn’t help them, it would still be mathematically implausible to genetically achieve this difference in the allotted time.


Evos do love making monkeys out of men, don’t they? :rolleyes:

“The fossil record of the living great apes is poor. The orangutan is actually the only great ape that has a fossil record. No African fossil has ever been found that is related to chimpanzees or gorillas.” – National Geographic, June 2004

Fred

View Post


Love the quote, it speaks volumns for the bias in TOE as natural history. Speaking of genetically implausible I wonder what the odds are against this:

"We devised a ranking of regions in the human genome that show significant evolutionary acceleration. Here we report that the most dramatic of these 'human accelerated regions', HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal-Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal-Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. HAR1 and the other human accelerated regions provide new candidates in the search for uniquely human biology." Pollard KS and 15 others. 2006. An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. Nature (online early)

Here are the details, the gene is 118 nucleotides long and since the split between chimpanzees/chicken last common ancestor only two substitutions have occured (fixed, preserved or whatever). This represents 310 million years of evolution so I think it is safe to say that this is a highly conserved gene. Then, for some unexplained reason, 18 nucleotides are substituted, most likely this would have had to occur 1.5 million years ago.

Only 1 or 0 substitutions would be expected by chance so there has to be something besides random mutations/natural selection going on here. Still, evolutionists insist that the substitution produced a beneficial trait and moved rapidly to fixation.

The real question is how is it possible to substitute 18 nucleotides in such a highly conserved gene without destroying the cerebrel cortex in the process?

At any rate, thanks for the quote. In the Sept. 2005 issue of Nature they published the first chimpanzee fossil along with the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome. When are people going to finally wise up and ask the obvious question, are the fossils they are finding in Africa human ancestors or just apes. They are just so desperate to find a transitional they find it everytime a skull, tooth, femur, footprint...etc, is unearthed in Africa.

Grace and peace,
Mark

#20 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 15 September 2006 - 09:40 PM

Excellent article Fred.

I wonder what N.O.W. (National Organization for Woman) would think about this. :rolleyes:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users