Jump to content


Photo

Decimation Of This Evolution Fairy Tale


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

#41 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:25 PM

Please explain why you claim that fossil evidence and DNA are not "empirical" and "hence under the scientific method not scientific".


No problem.

Fossils do not directly show evolution. We can observe similarities however these similarities by themselves do not show where they came from... they are assumed to be caused via evolution.

The same is said for DNA. DNA being similar could just be due to the similar operating procedures within cells.. Why design new DNA for the same cellular operations? However I doubt that DNA similarity is as close as they claim.



Furthermore these similarities would be the observations for the hypothesis of evolution... Evolution is the only "theory" I know of in which the observations that make the hypothesis are also the "evidence" supporting the hypothesis... The fact remains that you cannot carry out empirical tests on evolution due to the times involved, (claimed to take millions of years). Therefore without empirical testing evolution is (technically) still a hypothesis.

#42 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:58 PM

Wow, you gave me nearly a few hours to answer 4 posts. Thanks for being generous and giving me so much time.


No one gave you a deadline, so there is no need to whine.

#43 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:00 PM

I have answered already on how it matches up with the fossil record.


So you combine multiple sources interpreted with circular reasoning, and combine them, and this makes more weighty evidence. I see now, you are still clinging to circular reasoning hoping that it will eventually prove evolution. No such luck. I can see how it might seem acceptable since even the people conducting such studies see no problem with it:

"As our closest living evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees are especially suited to teach us about ourselves," said the study's senior author, Robert Waterston, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the Department of Genome Sciences of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. (among 67 other authors)

Still, circular reasoning proves nothing, except that you are chasing your tail trying to prove common ancestry.

Yep, my mistake, I was reading a pre-report before everything had been sequenced. I forgot to read the title, sorry about that. It is actually 96%.


Pretty big discrepancy as I said, about 120 million letters, and like I said before, the goalpost shifted so this large discrepancy is no longer a problem for "evolution". Perhaps you should read this again:

  • The chimp/human difference is actually 4%—much greater than the ‘only 1%’ commonly claimed in the past.
  • 29% of the protein-coding genes are the same; leaving ~70% that are different.
  • There are genes present in humans that are completely missing in chimps.
  • The differences include 35 million single letter ‘substitutions’; 40–45 million ‘insertions’ and a similar number of ‘deletions’. This adds up to some 120 million letters, which is 4% of the ~3 billion total number.
  • The differences represent at least 40 million separate mutation events, which is impossible for evolution even with an evolutionary timeframe of 300,000 generations (133 preserved mutations per generation, which means a vastly greater number, which is impossible without causing ‘error catastrophe’—extinction!). For more on this problem for evolutionists, see Haldane's Dilemma and the updated, in-depth paper by ReMine
http://creation.com/...the-differences


I means that whoever read the paper didn’t understand it, or was being willingly dishonest. Because we share 70% of the Y-chromosone with chimpanzees, that doesn’t mean it is the same for the whole genome. The genome is not made up entirely of Y-chromosomes. The person had literally subtracted 70 from a 100 and gotten 30. Wow.


No, you are attempting to distort the argument to make it SEEM dishonest. They were responding to a completely different paper than the one you cited: Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010.

They also never claimed that it meant that the whole genome was only 70% similar to humans. Perhaps you should go read the whole paper: http://creation.com/...omosome#endRef7

That we share an ancestor with Bananas. Is it 50%? It doesn’t matter if it is, I was just wondering.


Warning: Trolling is against the forum rules. If you don't trust an answer I give, you can ask for a source or look it up. Asking a question that has already been answered just to cause a spectacle will not be tolerated.

Which dishonesty please? Have you actual read the paper?


The idea that we are 98-99% genetically identical to chimps, which is false. There are still people who learned this in school, and think it is true. Yes I have read the paper now, but you were claiming 98% which you admitted as a mistake.


No, if Intelligent Design is a science, it needs to make predictions, that’s not a red herring, that’s science. As the bible can’t get anything right I would probably not use it too much in my science studies.


You are correct, this was not a red herring. It is a good question to be responded to in another thread so as not to derail this one, luckily someone has already made that thread for you: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=5051

Actually this brings up a good point, consider this a kind reminder concerning rule #10:

My question still remains unanswered, what predictions have been made by intelligent design?


10. Nagging or complaints that an opponent is not responding -- We are all busy, and there is no requirement to respond.

I have already said it’s not based on one singular trait, it is sometimes just explained like that for ease of communication. But nothing you have said answers my point that natural selection cannot act on traits that are not expressed.


My point was that natural selection (random reproductive success) can either allow a dormant trait to be passed on or not. Even if a trait is not expressed, natural selection can affect whether or not it is passed on.

Your point is correct too, that natural selection (random reproductive success) cannot select a trait based on its advantage or disadvantage (which arises when it is expressed) when it remains dormant (in a carrier).

#44 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:55 AM

1. No assumption is safe... Plus didn't you say this in post #35

"I don't assume anything"

Hmm sounds contradictory....


Hmmmmm, sounds like taking quotes out of context to me.

2. And? Fossil evidence is not empirical nor is DNA evidence hence under the scientific method they are not scientific... You may feel that drawing a comparison between the two is "logical" however you must admit that with no empirical evidence it is assumed and thus is not valid scientifically... as I asked is an assumption scientific?


You seem to be clinging to this, I can only assume you mean empirical as in "we have to see a species giving birth to another species", but this isn't how evolution works. Instead we have to look at the historical evidence. Which we do, and it all points to one conclusion..


3. What "evidence" is this... you do realise that mtDNA gives a totally different age of homind species than fossils do, also the Y chromosome gives a totally different age as well.... Safe assumption indeed...


Yes, because it gives the date of the most RECENT common ancestor. And the reason our paternal common ancestor has a different age is because, well, chaps are a bit more promiscuous than ladies are. If you need that explaining then I am happy to.

Further what evidence is there that this chimp was bipedal? I've seen many depictions of "bidepal homnids" which have been made from scant fossil evidence and a truck load of imagination... Nebraska man was one, and that was made solely from a pig tooth... (Safe assumption indeed)


I can only assume you are not reading any of the references I am giving you. The evidence is that the spine connected to the brain case at the bottom rather than the back which shows a straight, vertical spine, plus the feet were flatter than that of a chimpanzee (which shows they were still adapting).

4. Of course you don't know because you totally ignored my point about different RNA from non-coding regions of DNA. As I suggested you should research rRNA, siRNA, snoRNA and RNAi... These are claimed to come from non-coding regions and thus disprove your claims that non-coding regions have little function. Furthermore as I said you need to PROVE that non-coding DNA has no function assuming it doesn't is an argument from ignorance, (a logical fallacy). The funny thing is that I pointed this logical fallacy out first thing, so your continued reliance on it means either you do not understand or you didn't read my post


I quite politely asked you to point me to which bit you were answering, the reason was that your response appeared to be 2 separate points..It's hard to keep track when I am having 4 conversations and 2 of them are with you.

We know these genes are non coding because we know what they do in other species, what part of this are you having trouble with,. Pointing out coding DNA and saying "these bits code" is missing the point entirely. I am fully aware of RNA, but thanks for asking. What I am saying is that we have pseudogenes, genes that we know what their function is, BECAUSE of what it does in other species but it has become inactive in us.

5. And? Wow ONE gene.... There are hundreds of genes for rRNA so the fact you've pointed out ONE gene is a bit redundant wouldn't you agree. Furthermore you are still assuming that the GLO gene doesn't have a function.... Which is an argument from ignorance. You will need to PROVE that the GLO gene doesn't have a function at all in order for your argument to "hold water".


It was an example, and a good one. If we even have ONE pseudogene then that is evidence against a design. If you want to look up more (there are plenty) then go and do some research. I am not going to list example after example for you to ignore.


7. In the case of the GLO gene, from what you are saying only information is removed.. (hence loss of complexity). Is it dishonest to point out the illogical points of your claims?


YES BUT 3 PARTS REMAIN! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!

As I said if you claim that junk DNA is like the GLO gene and thus are remnants of old genes you have the problems I have depicted. Whinging will not solve these problems for you.


Whinging seems to be the only way to get through to you.

8. ..... I think your simple "mathematics" is wrong... 2000 / 30000 = .0667 x100 = 6.67%


Ha, yeap, my maths sucks. I didn't even do, I am afraid I guessed, but yeah, still 6.67% is still a lot.

Also name dropping is an argument to authority.. (another logical fallacy)


You asked me where I got the numbers, I told you. I was also criticised for not showing my sources, make your mind up. Also, as I have no way of mapping the genome of a human I have to rely on people that have done it or have worked with it, excuse me for not owning an extremely well funded lab.

9. A tail is more than a lump of flesh.. It has bones, and muscles which makes it useful like any other appendage. The "tail" you speak of is simply a mass of fatty tissue which just so happens to connect to the base of the spine. There are no muscles nor are there bones, it is useless.


Well, as the fetus has no bones OR muscles yet, it seems fair that the tail wouldn't either. When a fetus shows the beginning of a head, do you say "nope, not a head, just fatty tissue, no bones, brain or skull". When does it become something other then fatty tissue? As bone structures are quite late in the pregnancy.

The "tail bone" in humans is used for comfort while sitting or walking it is not vestigial


And sometimes, vestigial parts become used for something else, however they are still defined as vestigial because they no longer hold their original function.

10. I know you don't know, that is why I am trying to educate you.


Would you like a ladder to climb down from your horse?

If you follow the number you should be able to see what I am responding to... This is why I number my responses so its VERY easy to see what paragraph I am responding to and where.. However just in case you cannot read the numbers. I am responding to your claim about the formation of the testis. IF external formation is better then why hasn't it been selected for?


Yes, but they don't link up with previous posts before that, so when I am trying to have a conversation based on previous posts it's tricky.

Are you serious? Are you actually making that point? Even though I had explained it fully? That it is hangover from our fish like ancestors? Did you actually miss that?

11. You do realise that atheism, (when piously defended), is a religion too


Find me a definition of atheism that would support that sentence? Of course, it may link up with the definition in your head, but the point of language is that agree on a definition so we all know what we're talking about. If you want to make your own definition and stick to that? Well fine, good for you.

12. I suggest more research is in order... Tiktaalik has been debunked for years. Footprints were found in Poland and were dated about 20 million years older than the Tiktaalik fossils. This completely invalidates it as an ancestor of amphibians since how can it be an ancestor of something that lived before it :D Furthermore the tracks showed steps that are more consistent with tetrapods hence according to evolution this transition must have occured a long time earlier. This not only invalidates Tiktaalik but the entire assumed progression since none can now fit in the timeline these footprints propose... (unless you just assume tiktaalik into the new timeline... but as we discussed assumptions are not scientific).

http://creation.com/...ample-tiktaalik
http://www.livescien...on-rethink.html


I am not taking anything from creation.com seriously, because it's not scientific. You're other link only suggests that the tranisition was slightly earlier. Any peer-reviewed papers on this? This is just a news story and propaganda.


14. Yet that is how evolutionists describe it.... However how does what I have written assume that selection only works on one thing? All I have claimed is that for each "apparant" benefit there is also a trade off that also reduces the fitness of the organism. This may not apply to all but certainly to most. How is this doing anything you claim it does?


Because you were saying that fattening up pigs break their legs, of course natural selection wouldn't favour a trait that broke their legs. Your analogy is poor.The "trade off" only works if it helps the organism survive. Clearly fattening pigs until the cave in under their own weight would not help them survive, so that trait would not pass on. Are we learning yet?

In relation to your giraffe example, extra valves in the arteries of the neck need to (somehow) "evolve" as well since the neck is so long the giraffe will not be able to pump blood to the head, also when it goes down to get a drink its head won't explode from the pile-up of blood caused via gravity. However despite this what you said was a story, are stories scientific?


Oh, I am glad you bought up a giraffes neck. Ever head of the Laryngeal nerve? It's a nerve that branches off the vegus nerve and connects at the Larynx, in a giraffe it takes a splendid 15 foot detour down the neck, round the aorta and all the way back up. This is yet more evidence that we all used to be fish like creatures as in a fish, that is the quickest route because they have no neck, however as the neck grow and grows, it is less work to keep the nerve growing rather then re route it, which is what it does. Natural selection is a tinkerer, not a grand designer.

#45 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 31 March 2012 - 02:16 AM

1. Then perhaps he should have titled it "DIVERGENCE OF THE SPECIES".... Origin is the word he used hence it is the word we are abiding by... Where are the origins?


Maybe you could contact the publishers.

2. Oh I get it. Its just that as I said if you cannot explain that first cell then the explanation you have after doesn't really matter


You're boring me with this now, not only are you mixing chemistry with biology, but you're being smug about it as well..

3. And how does this solve the problem I pointed out? Attempting to hide behind humour will not make the problems go away.


It's because you're getting yourself in circles. Traits that are not expressed, cannot be acted on, sometimes they are deleted from the genome and sometimes they stay in the genome as pseudogenes, which we have talked about. Traits that are expressed CAN be selected. The way you phrase it you seem to think this process takes 3-4 weeks rather then tens of thousands of generations.

4. More information is required... A debate is about arguments, not posting a link and thats it


It's only a wiki article, read it..

5. Then where did you get the claim that we know nothing of the designer? OR is that just your own opinion?


Just a little something you said in #10.

"10. How would anyone know what an intelligent designer think"

6. Yet jumbled letters do nothing. Our genome codes for the development, and upkeep of a multicellular organism comprising of cells that are miniature factories... I consider this point closed.


Absolutely not, your vague, ridiculous question deserved a vague ridiculous answer. If I am not allowed to make assumptions based on evidence, how the hell are you allowed to make assumptions based on your "logic", what the hell gives you that right? Yes, nature is amazing, we know that, we understand some of it but not all of it. To say "it looks amazing, god dunnit" is incredibly poor reasoning and I am surprised you even made that argument.

#46 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 31 March 2012 - 02:19 AM

No one gave you a deadline, so there is no need to whine.


I think I was.

#34 Ron said

Okay, I'll give you one more chance at this..


When I hadn't made ONE attempt and answering him due to answering 3 other posts, that to me seems like a pushy "you have a time limit" kind of thing to say.

#47 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 31 March 2012 - 02:33 AM

So you combine multiple sources interpreted with circular reasoning, and combine them, and this makes more weighty evidence. I see now, you are still clinging to circular reasoning hoping that it will eventually prove evolution. No such luck. I can see how it might seem acceptable since even the people conducting such studies see no problem with it:

"As our closest living evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees are especially suited to teach us about ourselves," said the study's senior author, Robert Waterston, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the Department of Genome Sciences of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. (among 67 other authors)

Still, circular reasoning proves nothing, except that you are chasing your tail trying to prove common ancestry


It's called overlapping evidence, when evidence from different disciplines converge on one conclusion, that conclusion is accepted. Do you know how science works?.



Pretty big discrepancy as I said, about 120 million letters, and like I said before, the goalpost shifted so this large discrepancy is no longer a problem for "evolution". Perhaps you should read this again:


And as I admitted, it was a genuine error from reading a pre report before they had finished the entire sequence. Is this a plus one for you? Well done, pat on the back for you.





No, you are attempting to distort the argument to make it SEEM dishonest. They were responding to a completely different paper than the one you cited: Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010.

They also never claimed that it meant that the whole genome was only 70% similar to humans. Perhaps you should go read the whole paper: http://creation.com/...omosome#endRef7


I don't take anything off creation.com seriously, it's not a valid scientific research tool.




Warning: Trolling is against the forum rules. If you don't trust an answer I give, you can ask for a source or look it up. Asking a question that has already been answered just to cause a spectacle will not be tolerated.


I have made points that have wilfully been ignored plenty of times? Why is it me that is being warned?




The idea that we are 98-99% genetically identical to chimps, which is false. There are still people who learned this in school, and think it is true. Yes I have read the paper now, but you were claiming 98% which you admitted as a mistake.


"The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical."

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

Probably referring to that.





You are correct, this was not a red herring. It is a good question to be responded to in another thread so as not to derail this one, luckily someone has already made that thread for you: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=5051

Actually this brings up a good point, consider this a kind reminder concerning rule #10:


Thank you, I shall keep an eye on the thread.



10. Nagging or complaints that an opponent is not responding -- We are all busy, and there is no requirement to respond


It was me who was nagged at by Ron, I copied above..



My point was that natural selection (random reproductive success) can either allow a dormant trait to be passed on or not. Even if a trait is not expressed, natural selection can affect whether or not it is passed on.


That's true, and sometimes if that gene takes energy to create and it is no disadvantage to delete it, it will sometimes get deleted, this applies certainly to genes that are not expressed.

Your point is correct too, that natural selection (random reproductive success) cannot select a trait based on its advantage or disadvantage (which arises when it is expressed) when it remains dormant (in a carrier).


Thanks, I am glad someone here agrees with that :)

#48 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:30 AM

1. Hmmmmm, sounds like taking quotes out of context to me.



2. You seem to be clinging to this, I can only assume you mean empirical as in "we have to see a species giving birth to another species", but this isn't how evolution works. Instead we have to look at the historical evidence. Which we do, and it all points to one conclusion..




3. Yes, because it gives the date of the most RECENT common ancestor. And the reason our paternal common ancestor has a different age is because, well, chaps are a bit more promiscuous than ladies are. If you need that explaining then I am happy to.



4. I can only assume you are not reading any of the references I am giving you. The evidence is that the spine connected to the brain case at the bottom rather than the back which shows a straight, vertical spine, plus the feet were flatter than that of a chimpanzee (which shows they were still adapting).





5. We know these genes are non coding because we know what they do in other species, what part of this are you having trouble with,. Pointing out coding DNA and saying "these bits code" is missing the point entirely. I am fully aware of RNA, but thanks for asking. What I am saying is that we have pseudogenes, genes that we know what their function is, BECAUSE of what it does in other species but it has become inactive in us.



6. It was an example, and a good one. If we even have ONE pseudogene then that is evidence against a design. If you want to look up more (there are plenty) then go and do some research. I am not going to list example after example for you to ignore.


7. YES BUT 3 PARTS REMAIN! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!



8. Whinging seems to be the only way to get through to you.



9. Ha, yeap, my maths sucks. I didn't even do, I am afraid I guessed, but yeah, still 6.67% is still a lot.



10. You asked me where I got the numbers, I told you. I was also criticised for not showing my sources, make your mind up. Also, as I have no way of mapping the genome of a human I have to rely on people that have done it or have worked with it, excuse me for not owning an extremely well funded lab.



11. Well, as the fetus has no bones OR muscles yet, it seems fair that the tail wouldn't either.


12. And sometimes, vestigial parts become used for something else, however they are still defined as vestigial because they no longer hold their original function.

13. Are you serious? Are you actually making that point? Even though I had explained it fully? That it is hangover from our fish like ancestors? Did you actually miss that?

14. Find me a definition of atheism that would support that sentence? Of course, it may link up with the definition in your head, but the point of language is that agree on a definition so we all know what we're talking about. If you want to make your own definition and stick to that? Well fine, good for you.


15. I am not taking anything from creation.com seriously, because it's not scientific. You're other link only suggests that the tranisition was slightly earlier. Any peer-reviewed papers on this? This is just a news story and propaganda.

16. Because you were saying that fattening up pigs break their legs, of course natural selection wouldn't favour a trait that broke their legs. Your analogy is poor.The "trade off" only works if it helps the organism survive. Clearly fattening pigs until the cave in under their own weight would not help them survive, so that trait would not pass on. Are we learning yet?

17. Oh, I am glad you bought up a giraffes neck. Ever head of the Laryngeal nerve? It's a nerve that branches off the vegus nerve and connects at the Larynx, in a giraffe it takes a splendid 15 foot detour down the neck, round the aorta and all the way back up. This is yet more evidence that we all used to be fish like creatures as in a fish, that is the quickest route because they have no neck, however as the neck grow and grows, it is less work to keep the nerve growing rather then re route it, which is what it does. Natural selection is a tinkerer, not a grand designer.




18. It's because you're getting yourself in circles. Traits that are not expressed, cannot be acted on, sometimes they are deleted from the genome and sometimes they stay in the genome as pseudogenes, which we have talked about. Traits that are expressed CAN be selected. The way you phrase it you seem to think this process takes 3-4 weeks rather then tens of thousands of generations.


19. It's only a wiki article, read it..

20. Just a little something you said in #10.

"10. How would anyone know what an intelligent designer think"

21. Absolutely not, your vague, ridiculous question deserved a vague ridiculous answer. If I am not allowed to make assumptions based on evidence, how the hell are you allowed to make assumptions based on your "logic", what the hell gives you that right? Yes, nature is amazing, we know that, we understand some of it but not all of it. To say "it looks amazing, god dunnit" is incredibly poor reasoning and I am surprised you even made that


1. Shakes head.... How is that taking your quote out of context? In one post you admit to using assumptions, in a later post you then claim that you "don't assume anything"... Its very clear who is the one without context, this is shown by your contradictory, (thus illogical) posts.

2. No I mean empirical as in ACTUAL empirical. Observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable, your assumption based "evidence" are none of these and thus are not scientific.. I am glad you admit this and that historical "evidence" is used... Therefore you admit that evolution is not scientific since historical evidence doesn't abide by the scientific method, hence it isn't science. Thank you for admitting this.

3. Ummm No.. Different dates that differ by millions of years are contradictory... It is the same as 1+1=2 and 1+1=3. You cannot have 2 different values for the same thing.

4. And so the rest is inference... what about my point about Nebraska man being made from a single tooth, (a pig tooth at that)... Doesn't that indicate the level of imagination that evolutionists are given license to employ. Wouldn't that worry you, since assuming things is not science.

5. I am not pointing out coding DNA, as I have said about 3 times now go research snoRNA, rRNA, mRNA etc THESE COME FROM NON-CODING DNA... Coding DNA only code for proteins, hence all the DNA that codes for functional RNA, (the RNA that do things) are part of the non-coding DNA.

Furthermore as I said you need to prove that all each non-coding gene absolutely has no function. Great you've done one, another 2000 to go, (many of which code for the regulatory RNA which I have mentioned).

6. As I said before, you are assuming the GLO gene is a pseudogene there may be a function no-one has realised yet. Assumptions are not scientific.

7. So you agree information is lost, since as you said parts are taken out... There is nothing wrong with me, is this more whinging?

8. Really? It hasn't done the desired effect rather its just displaying your own character.... Again I ask you to address the problems your claims bring about. Your claims about junk DNA infers that the ancestors of animals had more functional genes and as these were degraded they became the junk DNA you claim, this process defies evolution. Furthermore wouldn't the GLO gene be selected against if it really did nothing... Why are such sequences here if they are useless and there is a fitness benefit to dropping them, (faster copy speed of DNA, less materials used to replicate). Do you see how your claim defies the very tenets of evolution itself?

Again I'll stress, whinging won't save you.

9. If 6.67% is lots then the 5% of difference between chimps and humans by comparison is also lots too.... Is this a case of evolutionary double standards?

10. Quotes of the paper would suffice, you're whinging because I picked up on your name dropping tactic. Please provide the quotes for the "15%" considering you got the % number wrong I doubt this is what the information states... Just giving a name is not enough info, I'm not going to scour the internet with only a name to go by. Provide quotes or a summary of the data.

11. True, I thought you were making claims about people who are born with "tails", which are just fatty tissue..

"The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles."
http://www.vedicscie...n-debunked.html


So basically we don't have a "tail" during fetus development it is merely the spinal cord developing faster than the rest of the body... WHich makes sense since the rest of the body, (bar the head since it is already developing), stems from the spinal cord hence it needs to be developed first.... Again this exposes the assumptions of the evolutionist...

12. Such as?

13. So claiming its a hang over, excuses the fact that IF it the other method is more advantageous natural selection hasn't selected for it. I can't believe you attempt to brush arguments aside...

14. As I said Atheism piously defended is a Religion, I have already shown you where Religions do not need to be about supernatural deities. A religion is merely a worldview, one about a person's origins and purpose in life...

Atheism's origins are BB and evolution
Atheism's purpose = subjectivism / humanism... "enjoy life"

15. Therein lies the problem. You do realise that the creationism article has references to scientific articles, hence it is exactly the same as a scientific journal... Actually it was published in a journal so it is scientific, despite what you claim.

16. I take it from this response that you clearly do not understand what I was saying or you are attempting to be stupid on purpose. My words are lost on you. What you wrote resembled nothing to what I said, I suggest you re-read till it sinks in.

17. Again nice story... Too bad you do not have evidence as to the ACTUAL method of how the nerve is like that. You can only assume at this point since no-one documented the transition, (remember what I said about assumptions..... they're not scientific).

18. We are only going in circles because you cannot grasp what I am saying... Here I will attempt to write it simpler for you.

If selection cannot act on the traits that are not expressed.

and if independent assortment means traits are randomly chosen for offspring

leading to regressed traits

then how can natural selection claim to change fish into amphibians when these regressed traits can still appear.

In other words how does the new traits get 100% fixation with no regressed traits.


This is in the same vein of the genetic diseases, if selection cannot eradicate genetic diseases to 100% what makes you think it can cause 100% fixation of a new trait, (even if it causes an increase in fitness... since genetic disease cause a LARGE decrease in fitness hence we should see selection against them).


19. It's only a wiki article you can quote from it...

20. Now you are playing word games. I already explained how that was not what I was saying, to which you said you were not

Your reply post #16
" Up to you if you want to answer it, my question still stands, if you say genetic disease is a failure of natural selection, then I say it is a failure of a designer."

My reply, post# 24
" 10. As I said how do you know what a designer would and wouldn't do hence your claim is nonsensical... Yet my claim is logical since we already know what natural selection is claimed to do hence we should be able to see it demonstrated in life, refer to point 9 to see how this is not so."


Your reply post #27
" If we don't know anything about the designer, how do we know what his design should look like? Because I am told a lot that we are made in his image (always a him, never a her)."

My reply post# 31
" 4. Did I say that? I said how can we know what a designer wants and doesn't want in his design... That is totally different."

Your reply post# 36
" No you didn't, it was just a question, I wasn't quoting you."

Note the retraction... Now you are claiming that you reach that claim from my post 10 which is completely erronious and is contradictory to your post# 36 in where you admit it was a question of your own making. I have already corrected your mistaken interpretation of my post# 10, hence your claim here shows either you forgot, you do not understand or you are trying to play games. Either way I'm not the one who looks silly.


21. Design is the ONLY answer, to information based systems. This also applies to irreducibly complex systems, such as cellular respiration.

#49 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:57 AM

I think I was.


When I hadn't made ONE attempt and answering him due to answering 3 other posts, that to me seems like a pushy "you have a time limit" kind of thing to say.



How long was the time limit for?

#50 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 March 2012 - 04:13 AM


Wow, you gave me nearly a few hours to answer 4 posts. Thanks for being generous and giving me so much time.



You may want to re-calculate your mistaken posting



No one gave you a deadline, so there is no need to whine.



I think I was.

#34 Ron said

Okay, I'll give you one more chance at this..



When I hadn't made ONE attempt and answering him due to answering 3 other posts, that to me seems like a pushy "you have a time limit" kind of thing to say.


Firstly – Where was the deadline I imposed? I said “I’ll give you one more chance at this” After that I wasn’t going to broach it again, because you weren’t answering it. I actually don’t care if you answer it or not, as you aren’t going to posit anything new (or hasn’t been said before); just more of the same old tired evolutionists squirming’s.

Second – you only answered TWO other posts. Please don’t exaggerate, it isn’t fitting.

Thirdly – Four hours, really? You may want to go back and re-calculate…

As I said, I really don’t care if you answer or not, as I’m not going to waste my time asking if you are going to ignore the post. But I will point out that they weren't answered, just as I will point out if they are answered fallaciously (which will likely be the case).

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 March 2012 - 06:11 AM



1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24.


Wow! Really? http://en.wikipedia....osome_2_(human)



Yes, did you not read the first sentence in your own link?



2. At the end of each chromosome we find a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans, on the other hand, are unique different with considerably shorter telomeres (only 10 kilobases long). (see ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ ~ Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T.)



We know there are differences, the article only suggests at what effects telomere has but even those suggestions are in line with what we know seperates humans and chimpanzees.



We actually knew of thousands upon thousands of differences that “separates humans and chimpanzees” AND ANY other ape, gorilla or monkey. And ALL of these are empirically testable as well.

For example:

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can write a sonnet, concerto, or any other musical composition!
No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can write a book, novel or any other piece of literature!
No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, manufacture and play the instruments in order to realize the actual musical piece either.

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture the writing instruments and materials used to write on, to realize the finished product of the book, novel or any other piece of literature or the concerto, or any other musical composition!

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture an automobile, motorcycle, scooter, mini-bike, bicycle, tricycle, skate-board (etc…).

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture a Spacecraft, Satellite, airplane, glider, kite (etc…).

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture a steamboat, ocean liner, sailboat, jet-ski, surfboard or toy boat.

I could go on-and-on, but that would only further separate your ‘wont to equate’ humans and apes, from the reality that the gulf between the two is too wide for reconciliation. Further, attempting to tie these together with DNA is simply an imagined contrivance, as you actually have absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence that does so.



3. Chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 are different; the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. (see “Which of our genes make us human?” Science ~ Gibbons, A.)



You answer your own point when you quote “which of our genes make us human?”



Exactly… And these genes also make us NOT APES (or chimpanzees etc…). The evolutionist stretches far and wide in their attempt to dogmatically and fervently protect their hypotheses.
Thank you for helping to rebut your assertions.


4. The Y chromosome is different in size and has numerous markers that simply don’t line up between the human and chimpanzee. (see “Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.” Chromosoma ~ Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M.



The Y-Chomosome is indeed quite different and I have answered above about the Y-Chromosome.


Exactly… And this also makes us NOT APES (or chimpanzees etc…). The evolutionist stretches far and wide in their attempt to dogmatically and fervently protect their hypotheses.

Thank you for helping to rebut your own assertions.



5. During experimentation, a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map was prepared specifically for chromosome 21. Observed was ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ What was found was a number of regions that “might correspond to insertions” specific ONLY “to the human lineage.” (see “Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.” Science ~ Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y.



Quoting only the abstract of a paper is bad practice as you don’t get the full picture. You have missed out MANY details that explains what exactly the paper set out to look for, why it did and what it found. It’s like reading the last page of a book and trying to work out the whole story. When you have read the paper you will probably understand why what you claim it shows is not in line with what the paper suggests

http://chr21.molgen....re_27_05_04.pdf



First – I didn’t quote “only the abstract”, I provided the source of the quotes as well. So attempting to suggest that what I provided wasn’t what WAS actually written is quite disingenuous on your part. If you can provide where I erred on the quotes OR, that I misquoted, that would be a different story. But you didn’t, Therefore your rebuttal fails.

Second – You don’t need the whole story, if the basis for the story is presupposed or less that factual (empirically). Therefore your rebuttal fails.

The paper you provided, in no way empirically links a macro-evolutionary lineage between man and Chimpanzee. It is presupposed at best. But, if you CAN provide such an empirical link macro-evolutionary lineage between man and Chimpanzee, please do so, or quit pretending that there is one.

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 March 2012 - 06:12 AM



What gives you the erroneous 98.6 percentage, is that these types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity, because not doing so gives the evolutionists a higher percentage.



I have already admitted my mistake on this, but the full mapping shows our genetic code to be 96% identical.



No, it only suggests such (at best) as I already previously provided evidence that it is only 95%. But, as I have already provided, “we share approximately 50% of our DNA with a banana, 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly, and 70% of our Genes with sea sponges. But, may I also remind you that that we humans share one-hundred percent of our elements with rocks.” But this, in NO WAY empirically proves that we were descendant of banana-like, sponge-like, or fruit fly-like creatures either. It is assumptive at best!



Further, we share approximately 50% of our DNA with a banana, 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly, and 70% of our Genes with sea sponges. But, may I also remind you that that we humans share one-hundred percent of our elements with rocks.




I think you have gotten yourself confused there. Just on the sponge I found these quotes:

“The new study shows that, while the sponge genome contains most of the gene families found in humans, the number of genes in each family has changed significantly over the past 600 million years. By analyzing which gene families were enriched or depleted in different groups of animals, the authors identified groups of gene functions that are associated with morphological complexity.”
ScienceDaily




First – The confusion here belongs to you, as you are basing ALL of your claims on more assumptions of others.

Second – The poster(s) of this quote ASSUMES changes over an ASSUMED 600 million years. This is not an empirically factual statement. It begs the question:


Were ANY of these folks around to empirically test, observe and repeat testing, to verify or invalidate any of the findings; or are they simply testing what they have TODAY and basing everything else upon ASSUMPTIVE assertions?


“This incredibly old ancestor possessed the same core building blocks for multicellular form and function that still sits at the heart of all living animals, including humans. It now appears that the evolution of these genes not only allowed the first animals to colonize the ancient oceans, but underpinned the evolution of the full biodiversity of animals we see today."
-Bernie Degnan, a professor of biology at the University of Queensland, Australia



The entirety of the above assertion is based wholly upon presupposition! Where have they provided the empirical scientific evidence that ties the lineage between the supposed “core building blocks” to “multicellular forms” to “first animals” to “animals we see today” and “humans”! Where are the gradual, transitional forms? There are absolutely NONE!


”According to Degnan, essentially all the genomic innovations that we deem necessary for intricate modern animal life have their origins much further back in time that anyone anticipated, predating the Cambrian explosion by tens if not hundreds of millions of years.”
-ScienceDaily




And he bases this opinion whole upon his evolutionist presuppositions. He, in no way provides ANY empirical scientific evidences to support his assertion, he simply “says it is so”…


"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," and "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts." ~ Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.



Same as above, counterparts, similarities, what we would expect if we shared a common ancestor.



We would expect to see gradual transitional fossils for one, but there are absolutely NONE!

In the case of the above quote, there should be gradual transitional fossils tying the so called “ancient mouse-like creatures” to modern man… Can you provide such? You cannot even provide gradual transitional fossils for an ancient “ape-like creature” to modern man. You simply attempt to stack various, diverse (and sometimes contrived) fossils end to end, in a failed (stutter stepped) attempt to adhere dogmatically and fanatically to your hypothesis of macro-evolution.

#53 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 March 2012 - 06:13 AM


"About 99 And why not, YOU are assuming that you “MAY” have a monkey like creature as an uncle; unfortunately for you, you possess absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence to prove such. But I can prove, with 100% certainty that all of my relatives are human.



I don’t assume anything.



Then provide the empirical scientific evidence that you DO have a “monkey like creature as an uncle”… Otherwise you are ASSUMING EVERYTHING…


Wow, you gave me nearly a few hours to answer 4 posts. Thanks for being generous and giving me so much time.


First – I didn’t assign ANY time limit to your response, I placed a limit on where or not I was going to give you any credibility at all due to the fact that all of the arguments you are attempting to use have been repeatedly refuted (and not only at this forum), AND I wasn’t going to waste any more of my time refuting what has already been disproven.
Second – You need to re-calculate your equation, as it is off by more than double. That, combined with the fat that I didn’t assign any “time limit” further destroys your fallacious assertion.
And lastly – You have a habit of not answering (see post 27) You are fortunate to even still be here. But we usually allow quite a bit of rope…



Unlike you, I read the papers that you quoted and didn't take my understanding just from the title or abstract.



That’s a pretty cheeky accusation Frenger, as I not only provided you with the quotes, but I also provided you with ALL the references (not abstracts) to the papers themselves.

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 March 2012 - 06:15 AM



I think I was.


When I hadn't made ONE attempt and answering him due to answering 3 other posts, that to me seems like a pushy "you have a time limit" kind of thing to say.



How long was the time limit for?

As usual, his accusation is foundationless.

#55 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 31 March 2012 - 06:33 AM

I don't take anything off creation.com seriously


Really? Then you won't have any problems refuting any of it. Let us know when you'd like to get started. Or do you make this statement just to avoid addressing any of its contents?

#56 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 31 March 2012 - 07:36 AM




Furthermore, we are about 50% genetically similar to a banana...so what does this tell us?

That we share an ancestor with Bananas. Is it 50%? It doesn’t matter if it is, I was just wondering.


Warning: Trolling is against the forum rules. If you don't trust an answer I give, you can ask for a source or look it up. Asking a question that has already been answered just to cause a spectacle will not be tolerated.

I have made points that have wilfully been ignored plenty of times? Why is it me that is being warned?


This has nothing to do with ignoring a point. You asked an insincere question that had already been answered to create a spectacle.

#57 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 31 March 2012 - 07:56 AM


No one gave you a deadline, so there is no need to whine.


I think I was.

#34 Ron said

Okay, I'll give you one more chance at this..


When I hadn't made ONE attempt and answering him due to answering 3 other posts, that to me seems like a pushy "you have a time limit" kind of thing to say.


"one more chance" can in no way be properly interpreted as a time limit.

#58 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:15 PM

It's called overlapping evidence, when evidence from different disciplines converge on one conclusion, that conclusion is accepted. Do you know how science works?.


Like I said, if some evidence is circular reasoning, and other evidence is circular reasoning, then putting them together to make it seem like more weighty evidence is dishonest. When different disciplines start from a presupposition about origins, and they develop converging evidence to support that presupposition, that isn't science. Do YOU know how science works?


And as I admitted, it was a genuine error from reading a pre report before they had finished the entire sequence. Is this a plus one for you? Well done, pat on the back for you.


Actually I was pointing out the significance of such an error. This error was not only a misquote by you, but it was also taught to the masses, so much so that people printed t-shirts and continue to believe that they are 98-99% ape. I was not clinging to your misquote, this type of sleight-of-hand and goalpost moving is typical of the evolutionist movement. Truth and empiricism is less important than confirming a bias. Now you want to act like I am being prideful for pointing this out? I have had so many poor arguments thrown at me (stemming from poorly designed, biased experiments and observations) that supposedly "prove" evolution over the years, it is embarrassing to science.

I don't take anything off creation.com seriously, it's not a valid scientific research tool.


You already tried to respond to what I posted from creation.com and failed so I don't wonder why you are trying to avoid such an occurrence again. If there was a fallacious or unscientific argument coming from the article that I posted, then you should easily be able to point it out. Instead, you take the lazy way out and attempt to falsely accuse creation.com of being unscientific. This is a type of ad hominem fallacy called poisoning the well.

The point still stands that only 70% of the genetic information in the X chromosomes of chimps are similar to humans.

#59 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:26 PM

Like I said, if some evidence is circular reasoning, and other evidence is circular reasoning, then putting them together to make it seem like more weighty evidence is dishonest. When different disciplines start from a presupposition about origins, and they develop converging evidence to support that presupposition, that isn't science. Do YOU know how science works?


Truth and empiricism is less important than confirming a bias.




I've been trying to instill some scientific thought too, but it seems to no avail. It seems the evolutionist community are satisfied with the thought that assumptions can be claimed to be scientific.... It really makes me wonder what people are taught at school these days.

Or is what they are taught at school being sweeped under the rug by populist evolutionist writers and media attention?... It's very disheartening when the core tenets of science are blatantly ignored.

#60 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:31 PM

I've been trying to instill some scientific thought too, but it seems to no avail. It seems the evolutionist community are satisfied with the thought that assumptions can be claimed to be scientific.... It really makes me wonder what people are taught at school these days.

Or is what they are taught at school being sweeped under the rug by populist evolutionist writers and media attention?... It's very disheartening when the core tenets of science are blatantly ignored.


Indoctrination becomes a vicious cycle. This generation grows up thinking that evolution is a fact based on the illusion that they were shown, and then they create more propaganda for the next generation...

Now we have all kinds of animation sequences and ad hoc theories, equivocation, and circular reasoning propping up the ToE because without naturalistic origins, they have to accept God...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users