Is there any evidence for evolution?

[AdamSK]

The initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and other papers put the divergence between 95 and 96 percent. Counting single base substitutions and indel. The indels are actually a sequence in one genome but absent in the other. The are sometimes over a million base pairs including the largest family of endoretrovirises in the chimpanzee genome.

So your answer is "their number was too low so I pulled a bigger one out of my rectum."

 

[AdamSK]

You were done before I started in on you. Ad hominem fallacies are fatal.

You should really figure out what that term actually means.

 

[mark kennedy]

Okay, I have. Thanks.

No you haven't. Your welcome.

 

[mark kennedy]

You should really figure out what that term actually means.

You should really learn what any of these terms mean like mutation evolution science and a long list of others. Not only have your arguments been exclusively ad hominem in circles ad infinitum ad nauseum. The statements ft st shorter with every post. That's that downward spiral I tried to warn you about. You went down faster and harder then most because you didn't even try to reason. You just went straight for the fallacious logic.

 

[AdamSK]

I still haven't made a single ad hominem. And you still haven't even provided us a claim to evaluate.

Sorry, sparky, but your dishonesty doesn't profit you anything.

 

[mark kennedy]

So your answer is "their number was too low so I pulled a bigger one out of my rectum."

No the answer is the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome. Nature 2005, Look it up dude!!!

 

[mark kennedy]

I still haven't made a single ad hominem. And you still haven't even provided us a claim to evaluate.

Sorry, sparky, but your dishonesty doesn't profit you anything.

The subject of every post is the other perso , thus 'TO THE MAN, THUS AD HOMINEM chief.

 

[AdamSK]

No the answer is the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome. Nature 2005, Look it up dude!!!

Where are your calculations that the Nature 2005 study shows a divergence rate, for purposes of mutation frequency, of the numbers you claim?
And why is that superior to the methodology in the study you actually cited?

 

[AdamSK]

The subject of every post is the other perso , thus 'TO THE MAN, THUS AD HOMINEM chief.

Yet again you show you don't understand what the ad hominem fallacy actually is.
But everyone reading the thread knows that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yet again you show you don't understand what the ad hominem fallacy actually is.
But everyone reading the thread knows that.

Everybody but you since you use the same fallacious logic every single post and then deny your doing it. Of course the regulars want to agree with everything you say. Especially if your wrong. Its the fastest way to derail the conversation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Where are your calculations that the Nature 2005 study shows a divergence rate, for purposes of mutation frequency, of the numbers you claim?
And why is that superior to the methodology in the study you actually cited?

The divergence is measured as a percentage in both studies. Are you really still trying to run me in circles with pedantic questions about things you know nothing about. Just look it up it's not that hard.

 

[HitchSlap]

The divergence is measured as a percentage in both studies. Are you really still trying to run me in circles with pedantic questions about things you know nothing about. Just look it up it's not that hard.

Oh, Mark.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh, Mark.

1,33 percent for the pseudo gene paper and 1,23 percent in the chimpanzee genome paper plus the additional 3 th 4 percent counting indels. Its interesting to see how the posts keep shrinking and the arguments shrivel up and die.

 

[David_M]

Here's one.

The basis of species evolving from one to another relies on genetic mutation, or discrepancies in the duplication of cells during development. If the mutation is to the benefit of the species, it will survive and improve by natural selection. If not, it will be weeded out. However, Vitamin E is the buffer for mutations during development, so if there are any minor or major mutations, Vitamin E should automatically cancel it out.

In which case Snaveley is flat out lying because multiple mutations are an observed fact. They are not automatically "cancelled out".

You have a good few dozen mutations that differentiate you from your parents, we all do.

 

[AdamSK]

The divergence is measured as a percentage in both studies.

So, no calculations from the nature study, no verification that the divergence value is better suited than the one used in the study for evaluating the rate of mutations.
And you still haven't even stated a claim that this "math" of yours, that you can't even get the names of the study,s authors right, is supposed to support.

 

[Gregory Mallett]

And you still haven't even stated a claim that this "math" of yours, that you can't even get the names of the studies, authors right, is supposed to support.

I said I wouldn't reply again, but wow. Buddy you've got to let this go. You are running in circles an making yourself look ridiculous in the process and I don't think you realise it. Move on already! There's no sense in pushing for something so small for this long. Even if we did supply all the math you wanted, you wouldn't believe it, I think you've made that pretty apparent.

To Mark Kennedy I cordially say you also need to tone it down. I've noticed you've stooped down several times to Adam's level by reciprocating his rather juvenile little retorts. I've seen this so often in atheists where they feel the need to insult other people as to support their own argument, almost as if the insult itself is a a good argument. Don't do it, man. Humility humility humility is how you deal with these things.

Peace out, all.

 

[mark kennedy]

I said I wouldn't reply again, but wow. Buddy you've got to let this go. You are running in circles an making yourself look ridiculous in the process and I don't think you realise it. Move on already! There's no sense in pushing for something so small for this long. Even if we did supply all the math you wanted, you wouldn't believe it, I think you've made that pretty apparent.

To Mark Kennedy I cordially say you also need to tone it down. I've noticed you've stooped down several times to Adam's level by reciprocating his rather juvenile little retorts. I've seen this so often in atheists where they feel the need to insult other people as to support their own argument, almost as if the insult itself is a a good argument. Don't do it, man. Humility humility humility is how you deal with these things.

Peace out, all.

I'm playing with him, just trying to get him to understand a couple of basic concepts here. First the actual divergence is between 95% and 96%. There is another issue of what an actual mutation is, single base substitution and an insertion/deletion, aka indel. This isn't as complicated and convoluted as it seems. Adam isn't all that juvenile he is just uninformed like most evolutionists, he never bothered to learn the actual details.

It's all too easy, guess it's hard to resist. Left unchecked it gets to be too much of a hassle so sometimes you have to point out the obvious. Thanks though, it's nice to know someone is actually paying attention.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

So, no calculations from the nature study, no verification that the divergence value is better suited than the one used in the study for evaluating the rate of mutations.
And you still haven't even stated a claim that this "math" of yours, that you can't even get the names of the study,s authors right, is supposed to support.

You really don't get this, ok, let me help you out a little:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome...40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Nature 2005)
​

I have been trying to warn you that the fallacious rhetoric was a downward spiral but you would not listen. I'm just trying to make a point and get the actual discussion on track. Give it some thought, try a little more substantive approach and do yourself a favor, lay off the ad hominem attacks. It's a downward spiral and you have already crashed and burned. Learn from your mistakes and let's try again when your feeling better.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[46AND2]

Even if we did supply all the math you wanted, you wouldn't believe it, I think you've made that pretty apparent.

To be fair, we see an awful lot of REALLY bad mathematical arguments from creationists.

Believe it or not, a cogent mathematical argument from a creationist would be refreshing.

But it doesn't really have anything to do with "believing" your math. It's math. It's either right or wrong.

 

[AdamSK]

Even if we did supply all the math you wanted, you wouldn't believe it, I think you've made that pretty apparent.

What's great about math is that it says what it says. You can discuss the basis of the calculations, question the premises, tweak the equations - but in the end, the calculations themselves yield a definite and objective result based on the data and assumptions that go into them.
Hence why, if your claims are based on calculations, it's particularly important to establish their basis and then share the process and results in detail.
I've changed my mind on this issue before due to encountering hard evidence that I found persuasive. I have no ideological barrier to changing my mind again.