Jump to content


Photo

"science Is Self Correcting" Needed Again


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

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 March 2012 - 08:59 PM

Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution

Evolutionists have long maintained that modern primate species (including, in their view, humans) are branches on an evolutionary tree that lead back to a common ancestor. But the recent news of the published genome sequence for the gorilla in the journal Nature adds more solid data to the growing problem facing the current model of primate evolution.

This problem is related to a biological paradigm called independent lineage sorting. To illustrate this concept among humans and primates, some segments of human DNA seem more related to gorilla DNA than chimpanzee DNA, and vice versa. This well-established fact produces different evolutionary trees for humans with various primates, depending on the DNA sequence being analyzed.

In a significant number of cases, evolutionary trees based on DNA sequences show that humans are more closely related to gorillas or orangutans than chimpanzees—again, all depending on which DNA fragment is used for the analysis. The overall outcome is that no clear path of common ancestry between humans and various primates exists, so no coherent model of primate evolution can be achieved.

The recent release of the gorilla genome spectacularly highlights this evolutionary quandary. According to the Nature study, "in 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other."

Of course, independent lineage sorting and the problems it presents for evolutionists are nothing new. It existed before the days of DNA sequencing in regards to mosaics of morphological traits, and it now exists in light of each new genome sequence discovery.

One of the first papers to expose this problem in the area of primate evolution was published in 2007 by the Center for Integrative Bioinformatics of Vienna's Ingo Ebersberger and his colleagues. They wrote:

"Thus, in two-thirds of the cases, a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other's closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree. In concordance with the experimental evidences, this implies that there is no such thing as a unique evolutionary history of the human genome. Rather, it resembles a patchwork of individual regions following their own genealogy."


It is noteworthy that both the recent gorilla paper and Ebersberger's report utilize highly filtered data in which repetitive DNA (which comprises a significant portion of the genome) is masked and omitted, homologous (similar) regions are pre-selected, and sequence gaps are omitted. Both papers cited here explicitly state this. After this initial level of data selection, a methodology called multiple sequence alignment lines up the DNA segments between multiple organisms and the data is parsed into evolutionary trees.

Therefore, the data are always carefully prepared and selected for optimal tree development and should be full of evolution-favorable DNA sequences. Nevertheless, despite all of the data manipulation to make it more conducive to an evolutionary outcome, the picture that always emerges is a unique mosaic pattern of DNA between the various genomes being compared.

These results continue to clearly support a Genesis-based biblical view of unique created kinds and mankind being created in the image of God.

http://www.icr.org/article/6723/

This is going to end up as another data set that will be omitted when the term "All evidence supports evolution" is used.



Enjoy.

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5671 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 March 2012 - 04:22 AM

Oooops! :P


May have to take that "fact" claim back a step

#3 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 12 March 2012 - 05:18 AM

Oooops! :P


May have to take that "fact" claim back a step


Careful though.. I can picture a very, very steep cliff behind them :lol:

#4 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 12 March 2012 - 05:31 AM

There will inevitably be some way of spinning this to their advantage...or they'll just tack on "a few million years" somewhere on the time-line to shoehorn various contorted explanations into the mix. No evidence creationists ever produce will satisfy a die-hard evolutionists, because they simply don't want God to be involved.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5671 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 March 2012 - 08:57 AM

Careful though.. I can picture a very, very steep cliff behind them :lol:


Lol.. Kinda like between a rock and a hard place. I predict this info will be ignored or played down.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 March 2012 - 11:24 AM

There will inevitably be some way of spinning this to their advantage...or they'll just tack on "a few million years" somewhere on the time-line to shoehorn various contorted explanations into the mix. No evidence creationists ever produce will satisfy a die-hard evolutionists, because they simply don't want God to be involved.


Kind of hard to do, since the fossil record also refutes their claimed facts about primate evolution.

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans--of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings--is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson (anthropologist), 'The Water People,' Science Digest, Vol 90, May 1982, pg. 44)



"...the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living forms."
(A. J. Kelso (Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Colorado), "Origin and evolution of the primates", in Physical Anthropology, J. B. Lippincott, New York, second edition, 1974, pg. 142)



"There are no fossils available as plausible ancestors of the primates, leaving the primate tree without a trunk."
(Martin, R. D., 1993. Primate Origins: plugging the gaps 363:223-233)



Enjoy.

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5671 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 March 2012 - 12:45 PM

Kind of hard to do, since the fossil record also refutes their claimed facts about primate evolution.

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans--of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings--is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson (anthropologist), 'The Water People,' Science Digest, Vol 90, May 1982, pg. 44)



"...the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living forms."
(A. J. Kelso (Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Colorado), "Origin and evolution of the primates", in Physical Anthropology, J. B. Lippincott, New York, second edition, 1974, pg. 142)



"There are no fossils available as plausible ancestors of the primates, leaving the primate tree without a trunk."
(Martin, R. D., 1993. Primate Origins: plugging the gaps 363:223-233)



Enjoy.


Careful Jason, evolutionists may accuse you of "quote mining" ;)

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 March 2012 - 11:16 PM

There will inevitably be some way of spinning this to their advantage...or they'll just tack on "a few million years" somewhere on the time-line to shoehorn various contorted explanations into the mix. No evidence creationists ever produce will satisfy a die-hard evolutionists, because they simply don't want God to be involved.


Yes. a whole new theory of how DNA works to fit the new found evidence must be worked out. And one again that will not have observable evidence to prove it. Only words. Yes words that are so powerful they can leap buildings with a single bound. It's super word. Defies reality by making new realities. Defies truth by making new truth. Defies being wrong by always being right.

The reason you don;t see any evolutionist post in threads like this is that their main problem is facing real reality and real facts. To post in a thread like this and discuss this would make them have to face their worst fears. That evolution might be wrong.

#9 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:43 AM

Kind of hard to do, since the fossil record also refutes their claimed facts about primate evolution.


Definitely, Jason. I would have thought evolution impossible to defend 50 years ago, but like Ikester said, if the evidence isn't there ....they'll simply make it up! Then self-righteously clasp their hands solemnly before their hearts, gaze upon the contrived "fossil record" that supposedly illustrates everything so clearly for "dim-witted creationists", and begin reciting trite pseudo-evidence to back up a position that is, at its best, a desperate attempt to escape God.

Eh. Forgive the frustration peeping through there. When people continually defend an impossible position, I can't help but shake my head and snarl. No amount of debating, no amount of evidence, and no amount of real-world results that prove a Christian worldview is more beneficial for a nation than any secular/materialist view will convince some of these people.

I pray God softens their hearts and readies them for the truth. And forgives me for being a jerk about it.

#10 Artie

Artie

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Norway

Posted 13 March 2012 - 07:47 AM

There will inevitably be some way of spinning this to their advantage...or they'll just tack on "a few million years" somewhere on the time-line to shoehorn various contorted explanations into the mix. No evidence creationists ever produce will satisfy a die-hard evolutionists,

I have found various kinds of creationism...

Young Earth creationism
Modern geocentrism
Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design
Theistic evolution

As a YEC which of these will satisfy you? Only YEC?

because they simply don't want God to be involved.

You are discriminating the other gods. It should be "they simply don't want God, Allah, Brahman or any other god to be involved."

#11 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 13 March 2012 - 09:44 AM

Hi Artie. :) Your country is one I've always wanted to visit. Some of the folks museums with the many log buildings look fascinating. One day I'll make it across the pond and give them a glance.

You'll have to pardon my jerk-ish tone; I'm having one of "those days." Stayed out too late, indulged in a couple of brews, and woke up at 5am to shuffle to work like a zombie. Nothing personal.

If the vaunted evolutionist machine can't agree between themselves on whether it was 2, 3, or maybe 300 million years ago that we lost our fins, I doubt Creationists will agree on much, either. It's expected that selfish human beings will choose to defend their favored position rather than seek truth. Christians aren't exempt from that sort of prideful behavior.

#12 Artie

Artie

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Norway

Posted 13 March 2012 - 12:17 PM

Hi Artie. :) Your country is one I've always wanted to visit. Some of the folks museums with the many log buildings look fascinating. One day I'll make it across the pond and give them a glance.

Yes please do! With the fjords and the mountains and northern lights and the amazingly varied four seasons and the midnight sun Norway is a beautiful country.

You'll have to pardon my jerk-ish tone; I'm having one of "those days." Stayed out too late, indulged in a couple of brews, and woke up at 5am to shuffle to work like a zombie. Nothing personal.

Of course.

If the vaunted evolutionist machine can't agree between themselves on whether it was 2, 3, or maybe 300 million years ago that we lost our fins, I doubt Creationists will agree on much, either. It's expected that selfish human beings will choose to defend their favored position rather than seek truth. Christians aren't exempt from that sort of prideful behavior.

Precisely. The person credited with the idea of the Big Bang in modern times is Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest. Just goes to show that science and religion aren't necessarily enemies. Besides of course the Theory of Evolution couldn't care less who or what created life, just what happened with it afterwards.

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:41 PM


I have found various kinds of creationism...

Young Earth creationism
Modern geocentrism
Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design
Theistic evolution

As a YEC which of these will satisfy you? Only YEC?


Which one is “Young Earth Creationists” Artie? Your argument needs to follow from the argument, not trail off in some opposing direction! The first thing you need to ask yourself is “What world view does Chris claim?” If YEC is the answer, all you did with your above question is attempting to cause spectacle.




You are discriminating the other gods. It should be "they simply don't want God, Allah, Brahman or any other god to be involved."



Once again, you are at a “Christian” site Artie. The above statement seems to be another attempt at causing spectacle. Is this really what you are attempting to do? Or would you like to rephrase the question and statement in such a manner as to be cogent to the conversation.

#14 Artie

Artie

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Norway

Posted 13 March 2012 - 02:20 PM

Which one is “Young Earth Creationists” Artie? Your argument needs to follow from the argument, not trail off in some opposing direction! The first thing you need to ask yourself is “What world view does Chris claim?” If YEC is the answer, all you did with your above question is attempting to cause spectacle.

"No evidence creationists ever produce will satisfy a die-hard evolutionists". Just trying to find out if for instance any evidence an OEC produces will satisfy a die-hard YEC. If so, I must be careful in the future to know exactly which kind of creationist I'm addressing.

Once again, you are at a “Christian” site Artie. The above statement seems to be another attempt at causing spectacle. Is this really what you are attempting to do? Or would you like to rephrase the question and statement in such a manner as to be cogent to the conversation.

Quote: "because they simply don't want God to be involved." That I'm on a "Christian" site doesn't change the simple fact that evolutionists don't want any gods to be involved, not just the Christian God. To say that evolutionists don't want only the Christian God to be involved is misrepresenting evolutionists point of view. I just wanted to correct that.

#15 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 13 March 2012 - 02:49 PM

I'll be satisfied with whatever we find to be the truth, Artie. If it happens to ruffle my feathers and force me to rethink a few things ....hey, that's cool. At least the curiosity will be satisfied. I don't really need it to be my pedestal to stand on while I smite the infidel. :silly_fight:

I'm admittedly biased, though, because I don't expect there will ever be any evidence presented that is strong enough to pull me away from regarding Genesis as the authentic account of our universe's creation and the Christian God as the ultimate author of all things. I'm still always glad to read whatever is presented.
  • Nuada likes this

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 03:04 PM

No Artie, you are at a Christian Forum, ergo, the theists who argue will do so from a Christian theistic view point, regardless of whether or not you like that viewpoint. Your attempt to assert that this forum is “discriminating the other gods” is a hoot! It’s like accusing you of discriminating against The Christian Theistic God because you don’t like Him!


Now, if YOU want to argue from an ancient Greek theistic view-point or an Isis theistic view-point, have at it. I'm sure you'll have many takers. Even if you want to argue from the theistic flying spaghetti monster or theistic Russell’s tea pot view point, I say "go for it"!

But here’s the thing Artie; if you continually make statements to cause a stir, or for causing spectacle, such as the ones above, you’ll be gone. As, when you applied to be a member of this forum, you agreed to adhere to the forum rules, but if that is asking too much (i.e. for you to adhere to what you previously agreed to), I suggest that you either go elsewhere, OR re-read the forum rules and adhere to them.

#17 Artie

Artie

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Norway

Posted 13 March 2012 - 03:55 PM

I'll be satisfied with whatever we find to be the truth, Artie. If it happens to ruffle my feathers and force me to rethink a few things ....hey, that's cool. At least the curiosity will be satisfied. I don't really need it to be my pedestal to stand on while I smite the infidel. :silly_fight:

According to the Muslims you are also an infidel so we will both be subject to "smiting"? :)

I'm admittedly biased, though, because I don't expect there will ever be any evidence presented that is strong enough to pull me away from regarding Genesis as the authentic account of our universe's creation and the Christian God as the ultimate author of all things. I'm still always glad to read whatever is presented.

Fair enough. Can't ask for more.

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:00 PM

According to the Muslims you are also an infidel so we will both be subject to "smiting"? :)


According to the Muslims everyone else is an infidel. ;)

#19 Artie

Artie

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Norway

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:26 PM

No Artie, you are at a Christian Forum, ergo, the theists who argue will do so from a Christian theistic view point, regardless of whether or not you like that viewpoint.

It's not a question of liking your viewpoint, it's a question of understanding some evolutionists viewpoint and try to make it into something it isn't.

Your attempt to assert that this forum is “discriminating the other gods” is a hoot! It’s like accusing you of discriminating against The Christian Theistic God because you don’t like Him!

I used the term discriminating because to believers of other religions their deities are as real to them as the Christian God is to you, no matter if gods exist or not. Just a matter of respect.

But here’s the thing Artie; if you continually make statements to cause a stir, or for causing spectacle, such as the ones above, you’ll be gone. As, when you applied to be a member of this forum, you agreed to adhere to the forum rules, but if that is asking too much (i.e. for you to adhere to what you previously agreed to), I suggest that you either go elsewhere, OR re-read the forum rules and adhere to them.

I commented on Chris's post and he has commented kindly back. Neither he nor anyone else seem to have any problems with my posts. I just try to be logical and reasonable.

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:35 PM


It's not a question of liking your viewpoint, it's a question of understanding some evolutionists viewpoint and try to make it into something it isn't.


No Artie, you are at a Christian Forum, ergo, the theists who argue will do so from a Christian theistic view point, regardless of whether or not you like that viewpoint. Further, there are Christian theistic evolutionists here as well; AND we have actually heard ALL the evolutionist’s arguments here. If you sift through the threads you’d see that, so it’s not a matter of “understanding some evolutionists viewpoint”, it’s a matter of refuting them.



I used the term discriminating because to believers of other religions their deities are as real to them as the Christian God is to you, no matter if gods exist or not. Just a matter of respect.[/color]


And just as your faith that there is no God is “just as real’ to you”; be that as it may, believers of other religions are welcome to come here and discuss their views as well. As long as they remain within the rules of the forum!

Further, disagreeing with someone, and refuting their assertions isn’t disrespecting them, that is a misconception on your part. As I said, your logic on that point is fallacious at best, it is analogous to accusing you of disrespecting the Christian Theistic God because you don’t like Him!


I commented on Chris's post and he has commented kindly back. Neither he nor anyone else seem to have any problems with my posts. I just try to be logical and reasonable.



Artie, I am “moderating” your posts due to your “disrespecting” the forum rules. That is not the job of Chris, or most anyone else at this thread to point these rules infringements. Now, are you sure you want to continue “Complaining about board moderation”?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users