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.
6. 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).
6a. 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?
8a. 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..
12."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."
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...
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...
14a, Atheism’s origins are BB and evolution
14b. 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.
1, I did mean both sentences in the same way, one of those occasions where tone would have helped. I would say that is strong evidence of a lineage going back 3- million years old to a "chimp-like" ancestor (but obviously not a chimpanzee).
2, "Ok, we have DNA evidence proving this man was at the scene of the crime". "Were you there sir?" "No, but I" "evidence not accepted".
This is a problem, that evolution takes many many generations, we can witness small scale changes, and changes which increases the information of the genome (the nylon eating bacteria that I linked to earlier) but we can’t, and wouldn’t even expect to see what you would call macro evolution. This is because it takes thousands of generations. I like the Richard Dawkins analogy (and used it above) of being like detectives where we can see the evidence of evolution taking place, and make predictions of what kind of evidence and where we will find it.
3, But like I said, I will need something peer reviewed please, mainstream media rarely gets any facts right.
4, But what you forget was it was evolutionary biologists who uncovered those hoax’s
"The hoax is often cited (along with Nebraska Man
) by creationists
as an example of the dishonesty or credulity of biologists that study human evolution, despite the fact that evolutionary biologists had exposed the hoax themselves" http://en.wikipedia....ki/Piltdown_Man
5, I think it’s fair to say I’m not very familiar with these, can you link me some papers or offer me some reading? Just link me the papers, I will read all of it, unlike some people *cough* Ron *cough*
6, The proof is that we know what that gene does in other animals, we can test it by removing it from humans and implanting it in other species (and trading it for there copy) and seeing that it still works fully in the other species. I will have to find you a paper on that though, bear with me
Also remember that a vestigial trait just means it longer performs its original function.
6a, See above
7, I agree, information is lost, and it is also gained, it isn’t one or the other but both, and depends on how it effects the organisms reproductive success.
8, I see, remember, we are still evolving, there is nothing to suggest the GLO gene will disappear from our genome, it hasn’t yet, but then evolution has no goal, it has no end point, it is always changing, and we are always changing. It doesn’t defy evolution that information is lost, because creating this information make take energy at no gain to the organism so it would be selected against. On a bigger scale that happens in animals like mole rats whose eyes are losing function because they cost energy to make and use and they have no advantage to keeping them http://en.wikipedia..../Naked_mole_rat
also eyes can easily be damaged underground.
8a, It Might J
9, Two different things really, 5% alcohol isn’t a lot, but 5% cyanide is.
10, Ok, the paper I think he got it from was this http://www.uam.es/pe...dogenes2004.pdf
"Using a homology-based approach, Zhang et al.  identified
8000 retrotransposed pseudogenes and
3000 duplicated pseudogenes in the human genome draft (Build 28, April, 2002 release). Ohshima et al."
It is a good paper, but I am just quoting, my knowledge of genetics isn’t enough to be critical of this (just being honest).
Oh, and the reason I got the percentage wrong is because I made a failure I can’t even begin to understand. The book (Jerry A Coyne why evolution is true)
only said that "Out of about 30,000 genes, for example, we humans carry more than 2,000 pseudogenes."
11, Not always though http://web.jbjs.org..../4/508.full.pdf
(figure 2, page 1)
12, I suppose this does come down to how you see it. From an embryology point of view and the human development following the stages of its descent (as in, each embryonic stage looking similar to that of its ancestors so, fish-reptile-mammal) then it makes sense that way. Especially when we add it to other embryonic evidence such as that of the whale.http://whitelab.biol...0and%20Hall.pdf
(page 449 for the pictures)
13, Remember, natural selection is a tinkerer, it works with what it has, there are many instances of bad design, we like that, if there wasn’t the theory would be in trouble. I’m not brushing this argument aside, in many ways this is the argument I like most, the argument of bad design which can only really be explained by understanding our lineage from ancestral animals.
14, Ok, I suppose this would only be an argument over semantics and again, we would just have to agree to disagree
14a, Do you mean atheism stems from understanding evolution? I was an atheist long before I knew anything about evolution, also, wasn’t Spinoza an atheist? Wasn’t he born long before the theory of evolution was proposed?
14b, I disagree there, atheism certainly doesn’t have a purpose, what purpose could you possibly get from "lacks belief in a personal god"?
15, Nope, scientific journals go through peer reviews, creationist websites do not, plus they are free to misunderstand a papers conclusion, which I know they can sometimes do. If you link me the papers and the reason why you have linked me to it, I will certainly read it.
16, Is this the pig story? I understand your point, I asked what is the mechanism for stopping evolution, you said the traits themselves and told me about pigs being bread for meat, so fattened up (genetically) but they crushed under their own weight. What I said is natural selection doesn’t work like that, clearly there has to be compromise between the different phenotypes or the organism won’t survive. The trait for "a lot of meat" would not survive and would not be passed on, therefore natural selection works.
17, Can you explain it any other way? Why would a nerve take a 15 foot harmful detour? And it is harmful because it now makes a blow to the chest dangerous to that nerve.
18, I don’t know what you mean by 100%, 100% in relation to what? It is a constantly changing process, there is no goal, just because we are talking about it now, it doesn’t mean evolution has been heading up to this point and now it’s done. They may well be having this conversation in thousands of generations time talking about the appendix or something like that. There is no 100% in evolution, there is no standard of evolution to measure that against.
19, Good point
is an RNA virus
that is duplicated in a host cell using the reverse transcriptase
enzyme to produce DNA from its RNA genome. The DNA is then incorporated
into the host’s genome
by an integrase
enzyme. The virus thereafter replicates as part of the host cell’s DNA. Retroviruses are enveloped viruses
that belong to the viral family Retroviridae
20, Probably word games, I’m getting so lost in these conversations that I forget my intent. Sorry about that
21, Can you explain why cell respiration is irreducibly complex?
And I don’t agree that design is the only answer, because the question then arises "who did the designing?"