Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
My point was simply that an uncorrected transcript error was a mutation.
Which is incorrect. Must be you picked up that erroneouis info from skimming a CreationWiki page.
...the conversation must be derailed using ad hominem (you miss spelled that by the way) fallacies....All they have to do is shovel insults and ad hominem attacks and they have instant credibility, mostly because, the scientists who frequent this board have no intellectual integrity.
How ironic and projective.
Perhaps it is really that the non-scientists who frequent this board have no sense of decency or humility or relevant education?
Maybe you would like to explain why scientists lie about what the actual divergence is.
You keep claiming that context-free statements are lies simjply because they do not jive with what you claim to know. If that is to be the criterion for establishing a 'lie', then I proclaim that you lie in nearly every post.
Do you also consider mistakes ot be lies? If so, then you've been lying for as long as I've been reading your funny posts.
What I love about genetics is that they can't hide the actual facts. With the fossil record they were able to hide the Piltdown fraud for nearly half a century, only to find that it wasn't even a cleaver hoax. Same thing with Homo habilis, these contrived tools they keep pointing to are not recognized by archeologists.
More lies.
They lie to us and I get really tired of making the long trip through the data only to find the facts have been distorted. The only reason they can't fail is because of a willingness to exchange the truth of God for a lie.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:25)
More ad homs.
Was the statement in Scientific American right or wrong?
If it's right then prove it and if it's wrong then why did none of these error correcting evolutionists confront the obvious error of the OP?
You don't read much of what you respond to, do you?
Yeah - just like old times. In fact, it is EXACTLY like old times - I see the exact same claims, even the exact same data being used (inappropriately, in most cases)
If I compare two sequences of DNA 100 bases long and 99 of the nucleotides are identical, it is a lie to claim that the DNA sequences I am looking at are 99% identical?
Really, I think the statement is crystal clear in this statement in Scientific American, just as it was in Time and the Nature Web Focus page. Here is the quote again:
A humbling truth ... (Scientific Amercian, What makes us human? by Katherine S. Pollard)
My mistake - I thought you were referring to your same-old, same-old quotes of yore and I did not read this entire thread.
I'm not sure what she is talking about.
Reading the actual paper, I think LifeToTheFullest is onto something - the paper is referring to a collection HARs and it seems to be in reference just to those when compared to chimp, but it is not clear and the SciAm article is clearly either a mistatement or an error.
So I guess all evolutionary biologists mjust be dishonest conspirators...
So you want to condemn all evolutionary biologists on the basis of what one person said in one article?
Can I use that criterion to condemn all Christians because I've seen a few celebrating the assassination of George Tiller?
I've seen creationists claim that no speciation has ever occurred. Does that mean that all creationists believe that ALL extant species were on the ark that didn't really exist anyway?
You know as well as I that it's at least 35 million based on single base differences genome wide and another 90 million bases (45 MB human, 42 MB chimp) based on indels. No where in the article does this capable and accomplished biostatistician indicate that at least since 2005 the known divergence is at least 100 million base pairs larger.
I also know that the number of bases in an indel has nothing to do with the overall mutation rate. What of it?
If I am looking at 2 DNA sequences 100 bases long from two specimens whose genomes are 1 billion bases long and there is 99% identity in the 100 base sequence that I am looking at, is it a lie to claim that 'the DNA' is 99% the same?
The statement is 3 billion base pairs of the human genome diverge by 15 million base pairs. This is simply wrong. Why does a Biology Professor let a statement like this stand when it is clearly erroneous?
What do you mean, 'let it stand'? What would you have me do? Write SciAm and complain that someone said something wrong in an article and that the erroneous statement is really irrelevant to the overall gist fo the article?
The precise number is really not that important, frankly. You are just hung up on it as a means of making what you think is a good argument. It isn't.
What you are saying is that you think that:
-all of the nucleotides involved in insertions deletions and duplications must be accounted for by the overall mutation rate
I think that would be nice but unlikely since the mainstream academic and media sources are not honest about the actual level of divergence.
And creationist detractors are not honest - or very well informed - when it comes to technical issues like this.
It has been explained to you proably a hundred times that the size of an indel is IRRELEVANT because it is a one-time mutational event. It counts as ONE, even if the indel is 10,000 bp long. It all gets inserted or removed in one shot. Therefore, they do not need to be included in the overall mutation rate, which is a measure of the OCCURRENCE of mutation. In fact, doing so would be an exercise in incompetence, sort of like claiming that if we launch a new rocket and it travels 1000 miles, we have to count it as 1000 individual launches because the old rocket could only go 1 mile.
-the largest % difference number, whatever it is based on, is the number to go by
No sir, the actual divergence. The total number of base pairs in the respective genomes that actually are different. Total base pairs/base pairs different would be the accurate ratio translated into a percentage.
As indicated, the actual divergence is largely irrelevant since it would be comparing apples and oranges.
-this larger number must mean that common descent is impossible
I have never said it's impossible, I am saying the the overall divergence indicates accelerated evolution.
But it doesn't necessarily, as has also been explained to you repeatedly. And even if it did, what of it?
When you look at a gene like the HAR 1 gene we are talking about highly accelerated divergence in a highly conserved regulatory gene involved in the early development of cerebral cortex.
Sometimes this happens. Sometimes it doesn't. You seem to require a uniform distribution of mutations at all loci for all time. Nature doesn't work that way, and I've seen your recycled quotes before. Not interested. Did you read the actual scientific pub, or just the SciAm bit? The actual article contains interesting information - such as most of the HARs are found close to the ends of chromosomal arms, indicating a positional effect. Hmmm....
I'm not saying this is impossible, as skeptical as I am I realize there are a lot of things that can change in relatively short spaces of time. I'm saying that this leaves room for honest skepticism Professor and reasonable questions arise and should be addressed.
Sure, asking questions is fine. But presenting questions as if they are evidence for something is quite another thing.
The thing is, if they are not honest about the actual divergence it becomes a credibility issue with me.
You keep tossing the term 'honest' around - do you think it is honest to repeat the same claims year after year when you have had your errors explained to you repeatedly?
- applying the same standards to things like intraspecies comparisons and interspecies comparisons dealing with any species but human and chimp is irrelevant.
I would happily compare them to interspecies and intraspecies comparisons ...
I think the term you are looking for is converged.
You did not understand my statement - your desire to use total raw sequence differences as the yardstick by which to judge hypotheses of descent runs into trouble if we apply the same criteria to other inter- and intraspecies comparisons. So, if we say that we must include all the nucleotides in indels in the raw count, and the human-chimp divergence goes up to 5%, then we have to use the same criterion when comparing dogs to foxes and loggerhead turtles to leatherbacks and even when comparing two individuals of the same species and guess what - the divergence goes up in ALL those cases.
I'm not entirely sure I understood the point you were trying to make here but I assure you my interest in purely academic. As long as evolutionists are honest and straightforward I will accept and even respect their conclusions regarding common ancestry.
History tells me otherwise, especially when you STILL refuse to acknowledge that overall mutation rates do not and should not be required to accommodate indels..
However, as long as the actual evidence is being skewed and the actual divergence is being misrepresented I remain skeptical both of their conclusions and professional integrity as I feel you should be.
Whatever...
Your reading of the literature at one time told you that DNA is made of amino acids and that mutations were "monstrosities." Your reading comprehension - as demonstrated by your history - is nothing to boast of or be confident in.
I know the difference between an amino acid sequence in a protein coding gene and other segments.
There is no amino acid sequence in a gene, protein coding or otherwise.
I have often pointed out that changes in amino acid sequences are neutral at best and when they have an effect they are most often deleterious.
And nobody would disagree. If adaptive evolution were easy, we'd all be supermen.
I wouldn't be as tenacious in my skepticism if you were as zealous to correct errors made by your cohorts and peers.
First, we like to make sure that the claimed errors really were. Second, correcting a claim made by someone on a discussion forum is easy, it can be done in almost real time. Correcting an error made by someone in a national publication is a bit different. Considering the fact that those in the know, know that science is a tentative buisiness, especially on the details, that one researcher claims a 99% identity and another claims 98% and another claims 95%, I don't think it really matters. The fact is that humans and chimps share a greater identity in the overall genomic as well as the genic level than chimps share with the other apes. If we want to make the divergence dependant upon the raw nucleotide difference, then the divergence between chimps and gorillas increases probably by just as much as the human-chimp divergence does.
IOW, your argument is irrelevant.
Depends on what you are comparing. Sorry.
See the above quote, it's whole genome comparisons. [/quote] Other such comparions do not bear it out. No biggie. Hard to tell what Pollard meant. If she DID indeed mean whole genomoe comparisons, then she is wrong. If she was referring to HAR regions, then the statement was clearly either terribly edited or was simply misstated.
It is ~99% generally when comparing homologous genes.
That was not what she said. [/quote] That is what I said.
That is not a lie.
Then what is it? Incompetence? [/quote] Perhaps an error of perspective? You are very quick to ascribe dishonesty when the answer is quite likley something else altogether. I've not read the article - I don't read popular press science magazines for a number of reasons - and I don't really care to. That one person's statement in one article seems incorrect is really quite irrelevant in the broader scheme of things.
When you toss in noncoding DNA and duplicates and the like, the difference increases.
Of course they do.
Good.
Just as it would when comparing ANY two species.
Just as it would when comparing any two humans.
Why you seem to think this is so significant in terms of the human-chimp question can be answered by realizing that your religious fervor dictates a need to be correct on a seperate ancestry for apes and humans.
My religion is a separate issue
Funny then that the only people that do not seem to accept it are religious.
the issue here is that a glaring error is being dismissed and rationalized.
And therefore.... what? I shan't get my panties in a bunch over what someone wrote in a popular press magazine.
No need to engage in your ego stroking 'challenges' to 1 on 1 debates - you never write anything in them that you don't write in the regular forum and you employ the exact same dodges and antics.
I know you have no interest in a real debate and I can't say I blame you since the evidence is actually pretty difficult to reconcile to you cherished assumptions.
Real debate is fine. Manefactured, recycled nonsense for the purposes of ego stroking is not. The last time I was in an 'official' debate on a discussion forum, my opponant ran away from the agreed upon topic in his first response, and insisted that he won because I would not diverge from the agreed upon topic.
I have no cherished assumptions to reconcile, whatever that is supposed to mean. You cannot simply ignore evidence because a person makes an error in a popular press article.
You are wrong here and you are wrong in 1 on 1 debates. The venue is immaterial.
If I'm so wrong then why does the statement made by Pollard contradict the finding of the Chimpanzee Genome Consortium published in 2005? You don't like to talk about that and yet you are unable to convince anyone, even yourself, that I am the one in error.
I'm not talking about your fixation on what someone says in pop press articles, I am talking about your basic positions - indels in mutation rates, brain grows too fast, etc.
You want to accuse me of error? Let's do it this way...You know it's not 99% yet you won't admit it.
Ummm....
I've written repeatedly that it is not 99%. Not the overall identity, anyway. I KNOW that it is not 99% overall. I also know that there are very sound reasons NOT to use the higher numbers as espoused by Britten when looking at descent, because in such cases the total divergence is misleading.
I also know that when comparing coding genes, the number is quite high, 99.4% reported in a recent study. Recent studies have also shown that any 2 humans diverge by about 10 times the amount previously thought. Are you going to be similarly fixated when spomeone writes that humans are 99.9% identical genetically?
I am neither surprised nor remotely impressed with the rationalizations you are making here. You would never tolerate such a glaring error made by a creationist but you ignore it when it's made in popular press. Shame on you Professor! I would expect better from a professional Biologist.
Thanks for the jousting match that reinforces my distrust of the academic and intellectual community with regards to our origins. To agree with such a blatant error is to abandon all intellectual integrity. Now you can either correct the error in the statement in the OP and the one in Scientific American or you can stop with the pretense of my errors conflating the actual evidence. My experience with evolutionists has been that you will do neither.
I am not surprised or impressed by the fact that you are fixating on something as irrelevant as this. Nor am I impressed or surprised that despite 5 years of having your erroneous genetics claims explained to you, you are still proudly making them.
The fact of the matter is that Pollard's claim is really irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. That your are fixated on it is demonstrative of the minutiae with which anti-evolutionists confine themselves, for the big issues are too much for them to handle.
Pollard's error has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence for descent, and a person that thinks it does is living in a fantasy land.
Sure there are similarities, but these I assure you are irrelevant to the ultimate purpose in life. What is important, most important is the differences between us and apes. Aside from the fact that a one year old ape or chimp gets along with greater agility than our one year old's, and that a female ape has very little pain if any when giving birth. And add the obvious, they have a tail we dont. Our DNA is different than apes, the number and shape of our vertebrea in our backbone very different. Our brain capacity is much larger.Our backbones are designed for upright walking, apes spines cause them to hunch over and knuckle walk. We are exceedingly more intelligent than apes. Then there are the languages of man. They are extremely complicated; yet, as far back as we go they only become more complicated. These are differences but still not the most importan. Here are two statements from AV. (Hope you dont mind AV, I especially like the 2nd. Might put it in my siggy)
AV stated; And I'll make the same point as I do with those who say 98% --- that 4% represents a barrier that nature cannot cross.
and also
AV stated; So, embedded in all this monky gene pool, are Homo sapiens --- just waiting for the right environment --- so they can make their grand appearance?
I will let Marilyn Adamson give you the MOST IMPORTANT difference between apes and humans.
Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life. I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."
Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.
There you have it, and there are literally millions of these examples living in our world today. Examples of, not the similarities we might have with apes, but more importantly, the difference. Free choice verses instincts. This important difference is one that no one should ever overlook.
Sure there are similarities, but these I assure you are irrelevant to the ultimate purpose in life. What is important, most important is the differences between us and apes. Aside from the fact that a one year old ape or chimp gets along with greater agility than our one year old's, and that a female ape has very little pain if any when giving birth. And add the obvious, they have a tail we dont. Our DNA is different than apes, the number and shape of our vertebrea in our backbone very different. Our brain capacity is much larger.Our backbones are designed for upright walking, apes spines cause them to hunch over and knuckle walk. We are exceedingly more intelligent than apes. Then there are the languages of man. They are extremely complicated; yet, as far back as we go they only become more complicated. These are differences but still not the most importan. Here are two statements from AV. (Hope you dont mind AV, I especially like the 2nd. Might put it in my siggy)
AV stated; And I'll make the same point as I do with those who say 98% --- that 4% represents a barrier that nature cannot cross.
and also
AV stated; So, embedded in all this monky gene pool, are Homo sapiens --- just waiting for the right environment --- so they can make their grand appearance?
I will let Marilyn Adamson give you the MOST IMPORTANT difference between apes and humans.
Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him. I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life. I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them. I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England." Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.
There you have it, and there are literally millions of these examples living in our world today. Examples of, not the similarities we might have with apes, but more importantly, the difference. Free choice verses instincts. This important difference is one that no one should ever overlook.
I wonder if MK would claim "evil atheist conspiracy" if he ever has a discussion with Kenneth Miller or any other Christian evolution-accepter. I also wonder if he realizes that some of the "scientists that haunt this board" actually have degrees in genetics.
__________________ Thalidomide, Pluto, and Challenger. Not a good argument against science.
Slug's 1st Law of YECism- Genesis 1-9 must be interpreted literally. Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law. Slug's 3rd Law of YECism- Make up any extra-Biblical claim, no matter how wild, to wave-away evidence in violation of the 1st Law.
Divinity= selflessness rather than selfishness. What is more selfish than sending somebody to hell because they don't love you?
There you have it, and there are literally millions of these examples living in our world today. Examples of, not the similarities we might have with apes, but more importantly, the difference. Free choice verses instincts. This important difference is one that no one should ever overlook.
Good point, Thomas.
I too have noticed some things that I think shows God working in these peoples' lives:
They go after Christians almost exclusively.
They talk about how bad Christianity is, yet they stay here asking questions.
They want the Bible out of schools, yet they spend hours asking us question after question.
These people are here, not because they are curious, not because they want to learn, and not even because they have an axe to grind with us.
They're here for one reason: the Holy Spirit wants them to see our faith.
They may think we're ignorant 'freaks in a freak show', but one thing's for certain --- they admire our faith.
I wonder if MK would claim "evil atheist conspiracy" if he ever has a discussion with Kenneth Miller or any other Christian evolution-accepter. I also wonder if he realizes that some of the "scientists that haunt this board" actually have degrees in genetics.
On a completely different note, THANK YOU for mentioning Ken Miller. I've been wanting, and forgetting, to email him about a paper for slightly over a month
Thomas: don't, please don't tell me that all the other apes have is instincts.
AV: you are weird.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"[G]ood and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are." Philip Pullman, The Amber Spyglass
[quote=Naraoia;52018688]On a completely different note, THANK YOU for mentioning Ken Miller. I've been wanting, and forgetting, to email him about a paper for slightly over a month
Thomas: don't, please don't tell me that all the other apes have is instincts.
I will make you a deal then Naraoia; I will not tell you that all the other apes have is insiticts as long as you dont reach in you little box (ToE box that is) and pull out some of those assuptions. Assumptions being that 500 thousand years from now the apes would have lost their tales, they will be communicating with languages like ours, and flying to the moon with a rocket ship they built. Deal? Actually I better give you a million years. You evos need LOTS of time, time time. Throw in some chance, a couple accidents, a couple random mutations...voila AN upright walking, talking, space monkey.
I will make you a deal then Naraoia; I will not tell you that all the other apes have is insiticts as long as you dont reach in you little box (ToE box that is) and pull out some of those assuptions. Assumptions being that 500 thousand years from now the apes would have lost their tales, they will be communicating with languages like ours, and flying to the moon with a rocket ship they built. Deal? Actually I better give you a million years. You evos need LOTS of time, time time. Throw in some chance, a couple accidents, a couple random mutations...voila AN upright walking, talking, space monkey.
You still haven't grasped the simplest concepts of evolution have you Thomas.
The niche for the upright walking talking space monkey is filled.
You still see plans and direction in evolution where no such things exist.
It really isn't a difficult concept - mutation - differential reproductive success.
That is more or less it.
__________________ A scientist, it's official
" The result, therefore, of this physical enquiry is that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" James Hutton, from his 1788 paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the principles of geology
)
I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
Linear Mode
