Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
...and started making these bizarre equivocations with the lunar landing being thought a hoax.
Liar. My premise was comparisons of other hoaxes (including Apollo and the Loch Ness "surgeons photo") with Piltdown entirely within context of the debate as anyone who reads the thread will see.
Originally Posted by mark kennedy
Piltdown should be cited by Creationists and my argument was simply that the Taung Child is a similar hoax. When you were confronted with it you quit the debate unconditionally and the truth of what I say is in the debate thread.
Liar. Since you seem to have such trouble remembering corrections people provide you about your genetic "arguments", I'd like to be charitable, but that's not what happened as anyone who read the thread will see.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
You mean any of the evolutionists who post here will agree with you. I know the routine but I was there for the debate and we both know you quit when the Taung Child came up. You guys fold like a house of cards when the actual evidence is brought out and you run out of rhetoric.
Liar. My premise was comparisons of other hoaxes (including Apollo and the Loch Ness "surgeons photo") with Piltdown entirely within context of the debate as anyone who reads the thread will see.
That was satire and sarcasm, what Piltdown should be compared to is the way the current evidence is being used. Better then half the population of the US was skeptical that the Eagle had indeed landed. There were valid reasons including the fact that the USSR had faked it once. A more relevant comparison was Taung and when I described how it was discovered you bailed.
Liar. Since you seem to have such trouble remembering corrections people provide you about your genetic "arguments", I'd like to be charitable, but that's not what happened as anyone who read the thread will see.
They are quick to make semanitical corrections for my remarks but not so quick to correct the bogas statements in Time, Scientific American and the OP. You keep calling me a liar but theirs is a lie of ommission.
As far as transcript errors, a mutation is a failure of DNA repair. I had not brought this up in the other thread but transcript errors are mutations, in fact:
This prediction is based on a model of somatic hypermutation of rearranged V(D)J sequences in B lymphocytes which involves the production of reverse transcripts (cDNA), containing nucleotide substitutions from the error-prone processes of transcription and reverse transcription using the V(D)J pre-mRNA template, which then homologously recombine into chromosomal DNA.
There are other indicators that transcription and reverse transcription errors are effected by some unknown mechanism. Since I have to pursue this on my own and get nothing but disinformation from evolutionists it takes time. The point is that saying transcript errors have nothing to do with evolution is wrong.
It's too bad you can't see what I'm into here but why would you? It's much easier to just cast aspersions and as long as you aim that at creationists your credibility is never questioned.
__________________
“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)
We just had a Creationist Conference in Poland. I translated a great lecture given by a PhD microbiologist from UK. The plain conclusion is: "The 99% identity of our genome with one chips have is a TOTAL MYTH!" He brought up some good stuff!
Usually when popular media inform about alleged 99% shared genome they omit rater important detail that they are talking about just 2% of the whole DNA information - about protein-coding genes. The rest of the DNA does not look so identical!
We just had a Creationist Conference in Poland. I translated a great lecture given by a PhD microbiologist from UK. The plain conclusion is: "The 99% identity of our genome with one chips have is a TOTAL MYTH!" He brought up some good stuff!
Usually when popular media inform about alleged 99% shared genome they omit rater important detail that they are talking about just 2% of the whole DNA information - about protein-coding genes. The rest of the DNA does not look so identical!
There are two comparisons. The first is the comparison of DNA that humans and chimps share through common ancestry. That is, DNA that has not been deleted since common ancestry. These are DNA substitutions where one base is switched for another. When that DNA is compared the identity is 98%. This number is higher in protein coding regions and lower in non-coding, non-regulatory DNA as would be expected from the process of evolution. How do the creationists explain why there are more differences in introns than in exons? In fact, how do they explain differences in introns at all? How do creationists explain divergence of LTR's in ERV's? How do the explain the fact that ERV's shared by all primates have a larger LTR divergence than the LTR's found in ERV's shared by just humans and chimps? Evolution can explain all of these facts, but I have yet to hear a creationist explain it.
The other comparison is the overall comparison. This includes DNA that has been inserted or deleted since common ancestry. This identity is closer to 95%. The two comparisons answer two different questions: 1) what is the substitution rate, 2) at what rate is new DNA inserted and old DNA deleted.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Linear Mode
