Jump to content


Photo

10 Facts Of Darwinian Evolution... Are These Facts?


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

#1 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:33 AM

I did a Google for 'evolution facts' and the below link is one of the first hits. The full title of the article is '10 facts of Darwinian evolution young earth creationists don't want to understand.

http://howgoodisthat...-to-understand/

I'm curious what both evolutionists and creationists have to say on this.

#10, for example, states 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are 98% identical. I thought I read somewhere, maybe even here, this wasn't the case. I could be mistaken.

Looking foward to your thoughts. Cheers.

Jason


Edit: Just saw my typo in the subject, it should say 10 'Facts' not 'Facs'. Mods/Admin, you can edit the subject if you desire.

#2 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 October 2012 - 11:11 AM

If I recall it correctly, that 98% depends on how you measure commonalities. You could get less, but you could also get more depending on how you measure. It seems there is also some structural differences between how the DNA is organized in the genome. And the Y chromosomes of humans and chimps are apparently very different, which feasibly excludes "common ancestry".

#3 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1084 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 27 October 2012 - 02:23 PM

CMI has a good article on that they just sent out in their daily e-mail yesterday (Genomic Monkey Business). Now that's timing Posted Image

#4 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 30 October 2012 - 10:49 PM

Not a single living organism that has ever been discovered shows any sign, whatsoever, of having evolved by non-Darwinian means.


Funny joke.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:19 PM

Funny joke.


How is it funny?

#6 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:43 AM

You dont think its funny?

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:02 AM

You dont think its funny?


No I thought it was a statement of truth

#8 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:39 AM

Not a single living organism that has ever been discovered shows any sign, whatsoever, of having evolved by non-Darwinian means.


Perhaps he's saying it's a joke because evolutionists claim that they have?

#9 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:22 PM

It's kind of oxymoronic.

#10 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:50 PM

The 98% figure was, if I am not mistaken an early estimate based on partial genome sequencing. When you sequence the whole genome it's about 95%. Not that it matters terribly.

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:01 AM

The 98% figure was, if I am not mistaken an early estimate based on partial genome sequencing. When you sequence the whole genome it's about 95%. Not that it matters terribly.


Acutally normally they skip the "junk DNA"... Hang over from when evolutionists used to claim that non-coding DNA was useless, Eugenie Scott debated this point I believe.... So much for her trying to uphold science in schools....

Additionally the method by which DNA similarities are found is entirely flawed and is biased towards searching for similarities. DNA being used has gaps put in it these gaps are to account for "evolutionary change over time" and are inserted in a way to try and get the most similairites between the sequence. This is called alignment.


ACTTCTC
AACTTCTC

Would become

A-CTTCTC
AACTTCTC


(Pro tip- see how without the alignment all the sequences after the first A were not similar, when you line them up without the gap there is very little homology)

However when you make note of where these gaps are and align the same sequence using different sequences you will see that the gaps put in the other version of the DNA doesn't fit the gaps within the other version of the same DNA

ie- I align DNA A with B, C and D, then I align DNA A with E, F and G

Since the gaps are different yet for the same sequence how do we know which are a true representation of the "evolutionary change over time", we don't, but evolutionists don't care if its a true representation of reality, only if there is lots of similarity.

Essentially this method is looking for the maximum amount of similarity, therefore the degree of similarity using this method really doesn't prove anything since the method is biased towards increasing the %.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users