Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
I regret having to condemn a fellow brother, but what else can I say? I'm sick and tired of the way Mark never stops repeating lies that have been corrected over and over again. This is a classic:
The Comparison of Human Chromosome 21 and Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 revealed that 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. These included gross structural changes affecting gene products far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins)
Is that a big difference? Look at the actual paper:
Among the 231 genes associated to a canonical ORF, 179 show a coding sequence of identical length in human and chimpanzee and exhibit similar intron–exon boundaries. For those 179 genes, the average nucleotide and amino acid identity in the coding region is 99.29% and 99.18%, respectively. Of these, 39 genes show an identical amino acid sequence between human and chimpanzee, including seven in which the nucleotide sequence of the coding region is also identical. ...
In contrast, 47 PTR22q genes show significant structural changes affecting at least one of their transcript isoforms.
The 83% above is hard to trace down, but the gist of it is that 39 genes show identical sequences, leaving 192 which don't, and 192 / 231 = 83.11%. Of course, Mark quotes the "83% dissimilar" figure which really suits his point. How dissimilar? Well, for 179 genes out of the 231, average amino acid identity is 99.18%. In other words, the majority of the genes differ by 0.82%. As for the remaining 47 genes, the largest indel in any of them is 195bp long - out of sequences of several kb.
I have personally pointed out to Mark many times that he has been abusing the 83% figure. I'm sure many other forumers here who have had contact with him have similar little tidbits and pet peeves over which they have been correcting Mark over the years - or at least trying to correct him, since he just won't listen.
What does the 83% show? Taken in context, it shows that human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22 have far, far more in common than the KJV has with the NIV analyzed word for word.
Oh, the humanity!
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
I regret having to condemn a fellow brother, but what else can I say? I'm sick and tired of the way Mark never stops repeating lies that have been corrected over and over again.
I'm sick of your slander and distortions. Let's get one thing straight, any time you want to back up your baseless accusation I will be delighted to refute your arguments formally.
This is a classic:
The Comparison of Human Chromosome 21 and Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 revealed that 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. These included gross structural changes affecting gene products far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins)
Is that a big difference? Look at the actual paper:
Among the 231 genes associated to a canonical ORF, 179 show a coding sequence of identical length in human and chimpanzee and exhibit similar intron–exon boundaries. For those 179 genes, the average nucleotide and amino acid identity in the coding region is 99.29% and 99.18%, respectively. Of these, 39 genes show an identical amino acid sequence between human and chimpanzee, including seven in which the nucleotide sequence of the coding region is also identical. ...
In contrast, 47 PTR22q genes show significant structural changes affecting at least one of their transcript isoforms.
The 83% above is hard to trace down, but the gist of it is that 39 genes show identical sequences, leaving 192 which don't, and 192 / 231 = 83.11%. Of course, Mark quotes the "83% dissimilar" figure which really suits his point. How dissimilar? Well, for 179 genes out of the 231, average amino acid identity is 99.18%. In other words, the majority of the genes differ by 0.82%. As for the remaining 47 genes, the largest indel in any of them is 195bp long - out of sequences of several kb.
I have personally pointed out to Mark many times that he has been abusing the 83% figure. I'm sure many other forumers here who have had contact with him have similar little tidbits and pet peeves over which they have been correcting Mark over the years - or at least trying to correct him, since he just won't listen.
What does the 83% show? Taken in context, it shows that human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22 have far, far more in common than the KJV has with the NIV analyzed word for word.
Oh, the humanity!
Just bear in mind when shernren was challenged to put up or shut up he did neither. The protein coding genes do show dramatic differences on an amino acid sequence level. On average the differ by a single codon but when you look closely at the various genes it is well over less then one percent.
Gene families are groups of homologous genes that are likely to have highly similar functions. Differences in family size due to lineage-specific gene duplication and gene loss may provide clues to the evolutionary forces that have shaped mammalian genomes. Here we analyze the gene families contained within the whole genomes of human, chimpanzee, mouse, rat, and dog. In total we find that more than half of the 9,990 families present in the mammalian common ancestor have either expanded or contracted along at least one lineage. Additionally, we find that a large number of families are completely lost from one or more mammalian genomes, and a similar number of gene families have arisen subsequent to the mammalian common ancestor. Along the lineage leading to modern humans we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees, including changes likely driven by adaptive natural selection. Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. This genomic “revolving door” of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives. The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families
He has also overlooked highly conserved genes that would have to have underwent major overhauls with no known genetic mechanism.
Evolutionists are unconscionable with their distortions as they conflate and distort the actual evidence. It is Darwinism that is the new geocentricism. During the scientific revolution is was the Aristotelian philosophy of the dark ages that held back the advancement of science. Remove this warped mythology and science can focus on molecular mechanism instead of assuming impossible mutational processes.
If you have the nerve to call me a liar you should have to nerve to back it up.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Evolutionists are unconscionable with their distortions as they conflate and distort the actual evidence. It is Darwinism that is the new geocentricism. During the scientific revolution is was the Aristotelian philosophy of the dark ages that held back the advancement of science. Remove this warped mythology and science can focus on molecular mechanism instead of assuming impossible mutational processes
Hey Mark how are you able to rationalise all hyper evolution that would have to occur in 6 thousand years in your beliefs if you cant even accept this small bit of evolution?
Ed
__________________ "the only lie is evolution itself. sometimes you must lie to defeat a lie. as silly as that might sound." - AngryNotice To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"It does not matter if I understand it or not. I just do not agree with it." - JohnR7 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"I am not delusional. I would probably outwit a professional psychiatrist," - Knowledge3 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
During the scientific revolution is was the Aristotelian philosophy of the dark ages that held back the advancement of science.
The Ptolemaic model did have it's problems and corrections had to be made for the epistles of certain planets, but back then Tycho Brahe's model was virtually equal to the Copernican, they were both coordinate systems that correctly represented what was being observed. Some say that Geocentricity doesn't account for the parallax of stars. For now I will quote Dr. Bouw on this matter, but I would like to perform more research in order to get back to everyone about it.
Originally Posted by Dr. Bouw
The Yearly Motion
An oft-asked question is how the seasons are described in a geocentric framework. Much the same as in the heliocentric model.
The key to understanding the geocentric approach is to understand that in the course of a year we reckon 365 days (366 if a leap year).
During that time the stars are seen to rotate about the earth 366 times (367 if a leap year). In addition, the sun travels in a north south pattern in the course of a year, resulting in a spiral motion when viewed from the earth or the outside of the universe (Figure
11). On the first day of summer (called the summer solstice), the sun is as far north as it is going to go; and on the first day of winter
(winter solstice), the sun reaches its southernmost point. The first days of spring and fall mark the times that the sun crosses the equator. Geocentricity allows the sun that north-south motion as it is carried by the firmament in a north-south motion due to either irregularities in how the matter is distributed throughout the universe or else to forces imposed from outside the universe. Figure 11b
shows the seasons from a geocentric perspective. Figure 9, pg. 117, illustrates the wobble in the universe which describes the yearly motion of the sun, planets, and stars about the earth. It is important to the understanding of the model that one realize that the yearly motion is not a rotation but a to-and-fro motion which describes an elliptical path the size and shape of the earth-sun “orbit,” the circle about the earth on which the sun is located, see Fig. 9. All the planets and stars participate in that motion, including the laws of physics because the motion is an inherent property of the firmament. The result is that parallax, aberration, the annual Doppler shift, precession of the equinoxes, and perihelion precession are all accounted for by the model.
The above text and the images below are copyright Gerardus D. Bouw and come from his book, A Geocentricity Primer (I do this because of copyright laws and the fact that Dr. Bouw gives permission to quote things from his book as long as his name and publisher are stated. I'm sure he wouldn't sue me if I didn't but I do it for courtesy reasons)
Remove this warped mythology and science can focus on molecular mechanism instead of assuming impossible mutational processes.
I agree, although I wouldn't compare molecular mechanism to Geocentricity.
If you have the nerve to call me a liar you should have to nerve to back it up.
I agree, If anyone calls someone else liar, and cannot prove it through absolute evidence, he becomes a liar himself.
__________________ You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
-- Thomas Paine
Last edited by RichardT; 26th September 2007 at 09:11 PM.
Just bear in mind when shernren was challenged to put up or shut up he did neither. The protein coding genes do show dramatic differences on an amino acid sequence level. On average the differ by a single codon but when you look closely at the various genes it is well over less then one percent.
When mark kennedy says:
The protein coding genes do show dramatic differences on an amino acid sequence level.
On average they differ by a single codon
it is hard to believe that he knows what he is saying. A typical gene has many, many codons - in the human genome the shortest gene, for tyrosine's tRNA, has about 200 bases for a total of 67 codons, and the average gene has about 10kb for a total of 3.3 thousand codons. I can't understand why mark kennedy thinks a change in one codon out of 3.3 thousand, or one amino acid in 3.3 thousand, would be a "dramatic difference on an amino acid sequence level". Can you?
Originally Posted by mark kennedy
... but when you look closely at the various genes it is well over less then one percent.
Gene families are groups of homologous genes that are likely to have highly similar functions. Differences in family size due to lineage-specific gene duplication and gene loss may provide clues to the evolutionary forces that have shaped mammalian genomes. Here we analyze the gene families contained within the whole genomes of human, chimpanzee, mouse, rat, and dog. In total we find that more than half of the 9,990 families present in the mammalian common ancestor have either expanded or contracted along at least one lineage. Additionally, we find that a large number of families are completely lost from one or more mammalian genomes, and a similar number of gene families have arisen subsequent to the mammalian common ancestor. Along the lineage leading to modern humans we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees, including changes likely driven by adaptive natural selection. Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. This genomic “revolving door” of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives. The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families
The difference here is not a difference between sequences of genes shared by both chimpanzees and humans - the difference refers to the number of genes that humans have that chimps do not have altogether. How did these new genes arise? Through gene duplication + subsequent mutation. This is fundamentally different from comparing human genes which have orthologs in the chimpanzee genome to their orthologs.
By the way, mark omits the discussion that notes, interestingly, that Similar calculations between rat and mouse reveal that approximately 10% of genes between these two species are not orthologs. If this kind of difference is prevalent between related species in different branches of the mammalian clade, why should we be surprised if we find it here?
Originally Posted by mark kennedy
He has also overlooked highly conserved genes that would have to have underwent major overhauls with no known genetic mechanism.
At base 15, there is a transition A -> G. Transitions can be caused by oxidative deamination and tautomerization.
At base 16, there is a transversion A -> C. Transversions can be caused by ionizing radiation and alkylating agents.
At base 26, there is a transition T -> C. Transitions can be caused by oxidative deamination and tautomerization.
At base 27, there is a transversion T -> G. Transversions can be caused by ionizing radiation and alkylating agents.
At base 41, there is a transversion T -> G. Transversions can be caused by ionizing radiation and alkylating agents.
At base 44, there is a transition A -> G. Transitions can be caused by oxidative deamination and tautomerization.
At base 47, there is a transition T -> C. Transitions can be caused by oxidative deamination and tautomerization.
At base 54, there is a transition A -> G. Transitions can be caused by oxidative deamination and tautomerization.
At base 57, there is a transition T -> C. Transitions can be caused by oxidative deamination and tautomerization.
And there you go. Genetic mechanisms: 6 transitions and 3 transversions. That's all it takes.
Originally Posted by mark kennedy
Evolutionists are unconscionable with their distortions as they conflate and distort the actual evidence. It is Darwinism that is the new geocentricism. During the scientific revolution is was the Aristotelian philosophy of the dark ages that held back the advancement of science. Remove this warped mythology and science can focus on molecular mechanism instead of assuming impossible mutational processes.
If you have the nerve to call me a liar you should have to nerve to back it up.
All I need to say here is that the number of times mark has been publicly refuted here speaks for itself.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
I will be waiting for you formal debate invitation. Call the tune and let's dance.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
I will be waiting for you formal debate invitation. Call the tune and let's dance.
Well, this is my final position:
Well I did make an off-topic comment in another thread on what my status was, but I'll repeat it here.
I'm giving up on the "Creationism is the new geocentrism" debate, because I am not going to insult the geocentrists that way. They dealt honestly with all their data, never leaving out what was inconvenient for them, going with their models as far as they could and throwing them out the moment they failed. The neo-Ptolemaics never modified their theories ad hoc, and they criticized the ad hocmodifications of competing theories. The geocentrists were entirely willing to make field observations of astronomical events that had already been considered to contradict geocentrism, and when they saw that the observations could be replicated, they lost heart in their geocentric theories, which were nevertheless forced onto them by religious ordinances of obedience. The geocentrists, if scientifically flawed, were at least systematically honest, Clavius freely admitting that Ptolemy needed to withstand substantial modification if it was going to explain Galileo's new observations; creationism has a long way to go before I will consider it as honest as geocentrism in its final days.
So no. Scientific creationism is not the new geocentrism. It is worse.
That's all.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Like I said, when it came time to put up or shut up he did neither.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Hey Mark how are you able to rationalise all hyper evolution that would have to occur in 6 thousand years in your beliefs if you cant even accept this small bit of evolution?
Ed
Actually it would be more like 4 thousand since the Flood. What you would have had coming down Ararat would be creatures with pristine gene pools. As this wave of adaptive radiation occurred on a global scale many of the gene pools accumulated mutations and experienced bottlenecks.
The thing is Darwinism takes things in the wrong direction. The focus should be on the molecular mechanisms involved in adaptations.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Actually it would be more like 4 thousand since the Flood. What you would have had coming down Ararat would be creatures with pristine gene pools. As this wave of adaptive radiation occurred on a global scale many of the gene pools accumulated mutations and experienced bottlenecks.
The thing is Darwinism takes things in the wrong direction. The focus should be on the molecular mechanisms involved in adaptations.
Please define the "pristine"ness of a gene pool and demonstrate experimental evidence of the "bottlenecks" that all land species must have undergone.
(The fact that you locate these bottlenecks after the disemb-Ark-ation clearly shows that you have a mistaken understanding of what a bottleneck even is.)
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Linear Mode
